If so, where does it come from?

If not, what's to keep me from committing felonies, besides the threat of jail time?

Are you insinuating that secular societies such as those in northern Europe or Northeastern Asia are chaotic, criminal places? That they have more convicts and prisoners than relatively religious countries like the US?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you insinuating that secular societies such as
> those in northern Europe or Northeastern Asia are
> chaotic, criminal places? That they have more
> convicts and prisoners than relatively religious
> countries like the US?

No. Quite the contrary. I think "Morality" is a natural survival mechanism. We make up 'morals' in order to survive. If everybody ran around raping and pillaging all the time, society would break down and it'd be anarchy and our chances of survival would diminish. I think we had morality before we had religion and religion just came along and codified it and packaged it and sold it back to us by convincing us we couldn't be moral without their pre-packaged conveniently codified 'religion'.
I think places like North Europe and much of Asia are far more secular than the US and, as a result, are a lot better off than Americans, by just about every measure, except money.

Thanks for the clarification.

I would say that associating the two is straining the situation. Europe has less crime because they have a more homogeneous population. People in Norway mostly come from the same tradition, they think alike. The US has more crime in areas that are more diverse such as S. California because they haven't had enough time to assimilate everyone into the dominant culture, and socialize (Americanize) various different people in the public schools. Places like South Dakota have less crime because they are similar people and have similar morals.

I think we are confusing some major issues here.

The argument I presented is that humans have a moral impulse (altruism) whose basic elements are present in the vast majority of cultures but is strongest with regard to people in the same relatively small group. You think I am wrong because morality is strongest with regard to people in relatively small groups.

Do you see the problem?

I think there is.
It's what philosophy is based upon.
What keeps me from committing felonies is empathy for other people. I wouldn't want to commit a crime against somebody else because I wouldn't want somebody doing that to me. I believe in certain principles, like the law of reciprocity, aka, the Golden Rule.
I believe that my survival depends upon my relationships with others and maintaining those relationships is a basis for morality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And if you can't do that, at least, don't be an asshole.
Do no harm and don't allow harm to be done to you.
Most of life is about survival and as social animals, we need our relationships to survive.
We're not the only species with morals and ethics or rules of behavior. Look at our cousins, the chimpanzees and the Bonobos, who are far more closely related to us than they are to Gorillas.
Chimpanzees are patriarchal and murderous. They kind of live like vikings. Invade others territory, murder all the males and keep the females and kill their babies. Bonobos, are matriarchal and are just the opposite. They're kind of like hippies, make love not war. Instead of fighting, they fuck. Mainly matriarchs with younger males, but also almost every other combination you can think of.
Both systems work well for survival, but who do you think enjoys life more, CHimpanzees or Bonobos?
And which are we more like?

We know where they come from. They are invented by cultures, therefore, they exist. Some cultures have different morals than other cultures.

Some people are screwed in the head and do whatever the hell they want, regards of the community morals. I don't know what keeps you from committing felonies--only you know (that was your question). I don't commit felonies because I'm a reasonable person.

Let's don't act like we're back in the middle ages of trying to understand this.

I agree in part but think it pretty clear that there is a genetic basis for human morality--as there is for other social animals. That is why the basic code of human conduct is common across almost all peoples.

Culture imposes changes on those basic impulses but basic, and widespread, impulses they remain.

Lot's Wife, I definitely agree with that. I believe the vast majority of people are born with altruistic tendencies, which are the foundations of morality.

Yes, there is sadly so very much evidence that the moral impulse is but one of several contending human characteristics that it is easy to overlook. But the rudimentary principles do seem to be constant over most peoples and most societies.

The question, it seems to me, is whether we can build on that innate altruism sufficiently to avoid the ever larger crises towards which humanities' other impulses are driving us.

I'm a Mormon and a Mormon always cares! There is no finer 'me first' morality than Mormonism.

Yeah, but who goes to the highest, moral, degree of heaven?

Frankly, I will do ANYTHING to trick ghawd into making me a ghawd!

read The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt

and

The Moral Animal by Robert Wright

Both of these show morality as an evolved behavior though from different perspectives

It is to your reproductive advantage to behave morally within human society.

Also read "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Morality evolved to further "well being". Part of the evolution dealt with strategies for the "cheaters".

Tell us just what "morality" is.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tell us just what "morality" is.

the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

I guess another way to ask it is,
is there any such thing as "right and wrong"?
If so, what makes it right or wrong?
If not, what keeps us from devolving into anarchy?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2020 09:52PM by schrodingerscat.

Social life on Earth at all levels show forms of morality. Haidt says we are born with a first draft which is then edited by nurture and culture.

Wright says that first draft is an evolved set of behaviors s to optimize reproductive success. That set of behaviors includes options for when it may be advantageous to cheat and behave immorally. different situations and competition reward different approaches. There are the trailing ends of the bell curve to exploit too so fringe behaviors can be rewarded at a small scale. And evolution works on a number of curves such as the excluded middle.

So yes, behaving criminally is advantageous, but only if a small number behave criminally and you don't get caught. It relies on most people outproducing the drain criminals impose on the system. If it were the dominant trait it would die out. Part of being human is the ability to change behavior sets to your advantage. It is to the rest of our advantage to keep criminality as low as possible.

Yes, the bell curve is the right way to think about this. There is great value in having most people behave within one or two standard deviations of the basic moral code. But there is also value in having a small number of five- and six-sigma people in a society as well.

A good example is narcissists and sociopaths. In normal times such people do great harm, so one would think evolution would have selected those genetic combinations out of existence. And yet they survive, for there are times when such characters are helpful for the survival of the group.

Could Hitler have been defeated if he were not confronted by monsters like Stalin, monsters with no conscience who were willing to sacrifice many millions of their compatriots' lives; if there were no narcissists like Churchill and Roosevelt, who were perfectly willing to use people and then dispose of them at will? The point is that extreme personalities are a form of insurance against extreme events. It's not clear that humanity would have survived in its various forms as long as it has if there were not a small number of evil people in their midst.

Hitler said killing jews was moral.

Honor killing in India

Dog fights, cocck fighting, lynching 'strange' people, marrying off barely pubescent females, so called Natural Selection, religious observances that end in death or injury, toeing the line of normalcy, killing lefties...

Such an endless list of good "morals".

I suggested above that the moral impulse is genetic but culture then channels moral codes in different directions. I had a couple of cases in mind although I am sure there are many more.

One is the Ten Commandments. If you were to remove the ones having to do with a single God, you end up with rules that are basic to most cultures. So the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim religion (at a high level they are one faith) imposes a jealous God while the behavioral code without the monotheism is evident in the Indian religions, Confucianism, etc. The basic code is the same.

The other example of cultural overlay would be the definition of the group within which the moral code prevails. One of the nastiest things about humans is their tendency to divide themselves into "us" versus "them" as Hitler did, or as the Serbians did to the Croatians and Bosnians, or the white settlers of the Americas did to the indigenous peoples and slaves. But that tendency to create "in" and "out" groups makes an ugly evolutionary sense too, for in most of human history the individual's survival required the survival of his or her group. One of the biggest challenges to modern societies is expanding the "in" group to encompass ever larger and more diverse communities, a project that was unnecessary for the survival of the individual for the vast majority of human history and hence something we are probably not biologically programmed to do.

In any case egregious cases like Hitler, of whom there are countless numbers, don't invalidate the moral code that applies within the group however it is defined. To my mind the consistency of that code despite cultural and religious overlays is significant.

I suggested above that the moral impulse is genetic but culture then channels moral codes in different directions. I had a couple of cases in mind although I am sure there are many more.

COMMENT: Just what impulse does this gene control? Does it encompass "the" substantive moral code, or do we need culture for that? Perhaps, there is a genetic moral "module" akin to Chomsky's language module. Chomsky's theory suggests that human beings have innate genetically programmed "rules" of grammar, but without content (meaning). Chomsky would insist that children need this inner native module in order to learn language. Maybe it is the same with morality.

But in both cases, we don't know where this inner module came from; i.e. its evolutionary source. In both cases, it just appears like magic. And since both are unique to humans, it is most likely a late development, which makes evolutionary explanations that much more difficult (contrived).
_______________________________________

One is the Ten Commandments. If you were to remove the ones having to do with a single God, you end up with rules that are basic to most cultures. So the Judaeo-Christian-Muslim religion (at a high level they are one faith) imposes a jealous God while the behavioral code without the monotheism is evident in the Indian religions, Confucianism, etc. The basic code is the same.

COMMENT: O.K. But even assuming this is true (which I doubt), that suggests that that the moral dictates: "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife," are part of this native, genetic moral code. So, how does this square with evolution? How is such a code adaptive? How does it square with Dawkins' "selfish gene?" From an evolutionary point of view, such dictates seem to express something against nature, rather than being part of an innate moral code.
________________________________________

The other example of cultural overlay would be the definition of the group within which the moral code prevails. One of the nastiest things about humans is their tendency to divide themselves into "us" versus "them" as Hitler did, or as the Serbians did to the Croatians and Bosnians, or the white settlers of the Americas did to the indigenous peoples and slaves. But that tendency to create "in" and "out" groups makes an ugly evolutionary sense too, for in most of human history the individual's survival required the survival of his or her group.

COMMENT: A socio-biologist might come up with a story about some genetic evolutionary component to group identification; and from there propose het another story explaining altruism within the group. But that alone does not explain the existence of an inner, genetic based, "moral" sense, either within the group or outside the group. After all, survival and reproduction within the context of a group has nothing to do with morality per se. You need another genetic story for that.
___________________________________________

One of the biggest challenges to modern societies is expanding the "in" group to encompass ever larger and more diverse communities, a project that was unnecessary for the survival of the individual for the vast majority of human history and hence something we are probably not biologically programmed to do.

COMMENT: Well, when you talk about a moral genetic code, or morality as "biologically programmed" you are already on shaky scientific ground. Be that as it may, why can't you just assume your genetic programing was morally "universal" and that it was cultural interests that suppressed it to apply only to a well-defined group, whether large or small?
_________________________________________

In any case egregious cases like Hitler, of whom there are countless numbers, don't invalidate the moral code that applies within the group however it is defined. To my mind the consistency of that code despite cultural and religious overlays is significant.

COMMENT: I agree with you that there is an underlying consistency of the human moral sense, notwithstanding both individual and societal deviations; not to mention the complexities of individual moral dilemmas. The problem you have is explaining all this by evolutionary or biological principles alone. Now, there is no doubt that biology and culture play a big part in shaping one's moral sense. But that does not mean that human beings cannot "know" right from wrong in an objective sense, apart from their biology and culture, and act freely in accordance with their best judgment as to what "morality" in this broad sense dictates. This is precisely why you have brave individuals who risked their life to defy Nazi Germany, biological and cultural dictates notwithstanding.

Again, I don't think you devote enough time to empirical research. In this case you are missing some well-established facts.

1) You ask a about the "gene" that programs morality. Of course there is no such "gene." Like virtually all complex behaviors, a moral code would emerge from a cluster of genes that interact with environmental factors. Also like other complex behaviors, you would expect actual conduct to form a bell curve with a big cluster of cases at the norm but plenty of exceptions as you move out towards the tails.

2) You assert that my moral impulse is "unique to humans." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Morality, or "altruism" if we want to use the biological term, is present in all social animals from ants, who will sacrifice themselves for the larger community; through mammals, who care for their own progeny despite the cost to the individual; to species in which animals mate monogamously for life. Morality and a consist set of basic altruistic impulses are one of the great constants in the evolution of mammals and other social animals.

3) You ask how a basic moral code could be compatible with Dawkin's "selfish gene" theory yet fail to recognize that moral/altruistic behavior that disadvantages the individual is precisely what he was trying to explain. The point is that if you want your genes to survive, you have a compelling reason to protect related individuals because they share a huge number of your genes. Dawkin's insight was that moral/altruistic behavior is entirely logical from the perspective of the "selfish gene."

4) You likewise ask how the general human prohibition on "adultery" is compatible with the "selfish gene's" determination to reproduce. Again, I wonder why you don't know the answer to this. For species that need years to rear their young, of which humans are the five-sigma example, maintaining familial and social stability is critical. The reason a father stays with his offspring is because if he leaves the mother and the young ones alone, their--and his--genes will not survive.

Similarly, it could be that the natural impulse is not against "adultery" per se but rather opposes familial or clan disintegration. In that case you would have communal norms against adultery, since that is the simplest means of achieving the end of prohibiting the abandonment of children, but a moderate or high level of "adultery" that is quietly tolerated. So you get a broader mixing of genes within a context of relatively stable family units. That is precisely what we observe among humans; it is exactly how a species should behave if its young require intensive care for many years.

5) You write that "survival and reproduction within the context of a group has nothing to do with morality per se." Yes, they do. Many fewer of my genes will survive into the future if I abandon my children.

6) You state that there must be an "objective" moral sense transcending genetics among humans that explains why people would stand up to Hitler despite the personal cost of doing so. Here again you reach for a transcendent principle that is empirically unnecessary. Humans act like very smart social animals. Many species evince moral behavior and, like a mother wolf sacrificing its health for its cubs; or a mother or father wolf attacking a bear to protect them; or a band of monkeys or primates who gang up on a "foreign" group at considerable cost, prioritize the interests of their genes over their own. Human "morality," like human intelligence, is merely a marginally more developed version of that almost ubiquitous pattern.

Occam would observe that you continue to reach for causes that are unnecessary. If one reasons from empirical reality--social animals in this case--you reach conclusions that make empirical sense and there is no need for metaphysical assumptions.

Again, I don't think you devote enough time to empirical research. In this case you are missing some well-established facts.

COMMENT: O.K. I love facts. Let's see what you have got!
____________________________________________

1) You ask a about the "gene" that programs morality. Of course there is no such "gene." Like virtually all complex behaviors, a moral code would emerge from a cluster of genes that interact with environmental factors. Also like other complex behaviors, you would expect actual conduct to form a bell curve with a big cluster of cases at the norm but plenty of exceptions as you move out towards the tails.

COMMENT: This doesn't explain anything. A "cluster of genes" that is not specifically identified as associated with a specific trait, not to mention a specific environment, is nothing more than an assumption without substance. Moreover, a statistical curve is so ubiquitous in nature, of itself it also has no explanatory value for a behavior beyond the statistical conclusion itself.
______________________________________________

2) You assert that my moral impulse is "unique to humans." Nothing could be farther from the truth. Morality, or "altruism" if we want to use the biological term, is present in all social animals from ants, who will sacrifice themselves for the larger community; through mammals, who care for their own progeny despite the cost to the individual; to species in which animals mate monogamously for life. Morality and a consist set of basic altruistic impulses are one of the great constants in the evolution of mammals and other social animals.

COMMENT: Again, NO! Altruism comes in two varieties, biological or evolutionary altruism, and psychological altruism. (See Sober and Wilson, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior) Only psychological altruism involves morality because it is associated with the decisions of conscious agents. Your assumption that evolutionary altruism, as found in social insects, adequately explains morality in humans is just false!
________________________________________

3) You ask how a basic moral code could be compatible with Dawkin's "selfish gene" theory yet fail to recognize that moral/altruistic behavior that disadvantages the individual is precisely what he was trying to explain. The point is that if you want your genes to survive, you have a compelling reason to protect related individuals because they share a huge number of your genes. Dawkin's insight was that moral/altruistic behavior is entirely logical from the perspective of the "selfish gene."

COMMENT: No. Dawkins use of the word "selfish" to describe selfish genes, had nothing to do with altruism. The gene was the unit of selection, not the individual or the group. In fact, Dawkins denied group selection, at least initially. And, last time I checked, no one makes a moral distinction, or engages in kin altruism, because they are concerned about propagating their genes. They just happen to love such people. A novel concept!
_______________________________________

4) You likewise ask how the general human prohibition on "adultery" is compatible with the "selfish gene's" determination to reproduce. Again, I wonder why you don't know the answer to this. For species that need years to rear their young, of which humans are the five-sigma example, maintaining familial and social stability is critical. The reason a father stays with his offspring is because if he leaves the mother and the young ones alone, their--and his--genes will not survive.

COMMENT: I don't know the answer because there is none. Evolution implies that humans will engage in intercourse to whatever extent necessary to enhance reproduction. To suggest that "familial and social stability" *biologically* is selected for as an adaptation overriding this natural tendency is both ludicrous and desperate; regardless of whoever came up with this nonsense. It is a "just-so" story that is just another attempt to explain human behavior in evolutionary terms, whether it makes sense or not.
_______________________________________

Similarly, it could be that the natural impulse is not against "adultery" per se but rather opposes familial or clan disintegration. In that case you would have communal norms against adultery, since that is the simplest means of achieving the end of prohibiting the abandonment of children, but a moderate or high level of "adultery" that is quietly tolerated. So you get a broader mixing of genes within a context of relatively stable family units. That is precisely what we observe among humans; it is exactly how a species should behave if its young require intensive care for many years.

COMMENT: Look, I agree that cultural is at work here. But, you started us off with a moral gene (or set of genes) and suggested that biology provided a nativist explanation for ouro moral sense, that was then "directed" by culture. What you are describing here is just the opposite; a biological trait that is suppressed by culture; i.e. where culture takes the lead in establishing moral dictates, genetics notwithstanding. Fine, but then leave evolution and biology out of it. The problem then, of course, is to explain how and why people deviate from cultural moral norms.
___________________________________________

5) You write that "survival and reproduction within the context of a group has nothing to do with morality per se." Yes, they do. Many fewer of my genes will survive into the future if I abandon my children.

COMMENT: And that is why you make the moral decision not to abandon your children? Because your genes have dictated that behavior?
____________________________________________

6) You state that there must be an "objective" moral sense transcending genetics among humans that explains why people would stand up to Hitler despite the personal cost of doing so. Here again you reach for a transcendent principle that is empirically unnecessary. Humans act like very smart social animals.

COMMENT: That comment is offensive. Are you suggesting that those who resisted Hitler did so because "they are very smart social animals?" Well, not very smart if evolution is in charge, because they risked their lives, and often lost their lives, because of their "smarts." Why is it so hard to just say that human beings are conscious moral agents, having freewill to follow the dictates of their moral sense--evolution and culture notwithstanding? And, until you *show* me otherwise, by providing a rational explanation of psychological altruism, transcendent principles *are* necessary!
_______________________________________

Many species evince moral behavior and, like a mother wolf sacrificing its health for its cubs; or a mother or father wolf attacking a bear to protect them; or a band of monkeys or primates who gang up on a "foreign" group at considerable cost, prioritize the interests of their genes over their own. Human "morality," like human intelligence, is merely a marginally more developed version of that almost ubiquitous pattern.

COMMENT: Nonsense. See above.
________________________________________

Occam would observe that you continue to reach for causes that are unnecessary. If one reasons from empirical reality--social animals in this case--you reach conclusions that make empirical sense and there is no need for metaphysical assumptions.

COMMENT: Well, what happened to your promise of facts! All you did was make statements; most of which were unsupportable. Metaphysical assumptions, by the way, are at the heart of science, including especially evolutionary biology. Let's start with the basic assumption that you implicitly adopt here; the assumption that all of human behavior must be explainable in materialist terms. I have never heard or read of an explanation of altruism as applied to the behavior of humans (psychological) that was explainable in evolutionary terms, for reasons I have plainly stated here. Evolution does not, and cannot, explain how someone like a member of the Nazi resistance, would willingly sacrifice their life for complete strangers in opposition to both their biological survival heritage and their cultural background. You need transcendence of some sort for such an explanation. But, then, as I have said many times, consciousness itself is a transcendent property of human beings; as is freewill. So, why not morality?

Thank you for your comments, LW. I hope you and your family are well.

> COMMENT: This doesn't explain anything. A "cluster
> of genes" that is not specifically identified as
> associated with a specific trait, not to mention a
> specific environment, is nothing more than an
> assumption without substance.

So you do not think there is a genetic basis for human intelligence?


----------
> Moreover, a
> statistical curve is so ubiquitous in nature, of
> itself it also has no explanatory value for a
> behavior beyond the statistical conclusion itself.

There is no evolutionary scientist or biologist or psychologist or physicist who believes this.


--------------
> COMMENT: Again, NO! Altruism comes in two
> varieties, biological or evolutionary altruism,
> and psychological altruism. (See Sober and
> Wilson, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology
> of Unselfish Behavior) Only psychological
> altruism involves morality because it is
> associated with the decisions of conscious agents.
> Your assumption that evolutionary altruism, as
> found in social insects, adequately explains
> morality in humans is just false!

Your assumption being that there is a hard line between other social animals and humans. That is empirically false. These things are distributed statistically across and within species--but of course if one denies the role of statistical analysis in science, as you just did, empirical reality doesn't matter.


--------------
> COMMENT: No. Dawkins use of the word "selfish" to
> describe selfish genes, had nothing to do with
> altruism. The gene was the unit of selection, not
> the individual or the group.

Of course Dawkin's analysis was about altruism. The only reason to resort to the gene as the unit of selection was because altruistic behavior renders the individual the wrong unit of selection. He was explaining why individuals violate their own survival imperative.


------------------
> In fact, Dawkins
> denied group selection, at least initially. And,
> last time I checked, no one makes a moral
> distinction, or engages in kin altruism, because
> they are concerned about propagating their genes.

That is to miss the point. People do a lot of what they do for reasons they don't understand. (Does that even need to be said?) Much of that is precisely because of genetic inclinations that are extremely powerful and yet so complex that no one comprehends how they work. Dawkins' purpose was to explain the logic behind what for the macro-organism illogical behavior.


-----------------
> COMMENT: I don't know the answer because there is
> none. Evolution implies that humans will engage
> in intercourse to whatever extent necessary to
> enhance reproduction.

Evolution does not imply that at all. It implies that organisms, whether COVID-19 or primates, behave in a manner that is likely to perpetuate the survival and expansion of specific genetic components. Nothing more.


--------------------
> To suggest that "familial
> and social stability" *biologically* is selected
> for as an adaptation overriding this natural
> tendency is both ludicrous and desperate;

The problem disappears if you give up the nonsensical notion that the natural human tendency is to "engage in intercourse to whatever extent necessary to enhance reproduction." The unit of selection is the gene and not, as you claim, the individual.


---------------
> regardless of whoever came up with this nonsense.
> It is a "just-so" story that is just another
> attempt to explain human behavior in evolutionary
> terms, whether it makes sense or not.

The selfish gene school is not a "just-so" story at all. It merely observes that patterns of macro behavior are better understood as the result of micro dynamics. Moreover, it states that some species will die out because the micro dynamics do not evolve fast enough to match changes in the macro environment. That insight explains tragedies as well as successes.


------------------
> COMMENT: Look, I agree that cultural is at work
> here. But, you started us off with a moral gene
> (or set of genes) and suggested that biology
> provided a nativist explanation for ouro moral
> sense, that was then "directed" by culture.

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. My post was simply the application of the principles of all human behavior--witness intelligence, temperament, personality disorders, facility with a paint brush--to the question of morality. As I said more than once, behavior is a product of both genes and environment. If you see a contradiction in that, so be it. But then you might as well give up trying to understand the natural world because almost all of it is described by curves.


------------
> What
> you are describing here is just the opposite; a
> biological trait that is suppressed by culture;
> i.e. where culture takes the lead in establishing
> moral dictates, genetics notwithstanding.

That only makes sense if one accepts your reductive assertion that human genetics programs people to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible. Once one rejects that proposition on the grounds that there are countless examples of animals prioritizing things besides immediate reproduction, the paradox disappears.


----------------
> Fine,
> but then leave evolution and biology out of it.
> The problem then, of course, is to explain how and
> why people deviate from cultural moral norms.

There is no paradox if you recognize that humans are driven by both genetics and environment, a point that seems so well-established that repeating the explanation should not be necessary.


-----------------
> COMMENT: And that is why you make the moral
> decision not to abandon your children? Because
> your genes have dictated that behavior?

No, it is why most people in most communities exhibit the same pattern of behavior. There is a predilection, manifest in everything from ants to humans, in many situations to prioritize the survival of one's children over oneself. Genes don't dictate any complex attribute: they alter probabilities.


----------------
> COMMENT: That comment is offensive. Are you
> suggesting that those who resisted Hitler did so
> because "they are very smart social animals?"
> Well, not very smart if evolution is in charge,
> because they risked their lives, and often lost
> their lives, because of their "smarts."

Why do you insist on ignoring the biological research on altruism? Why do you persist in proffering the argument, long ago rejected by science, that the survival of the individual is the genetic imperative? No one believes that.


-------------
> Why is it
> so hard to just say that human beings are
> conscious moral agents, having freewill to follow
> the dictates of their moral sense--evolution and
> culture notwithstanding?

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. There is nothing incompatible between genetic inclinations and cultural/conscious choice. You are the only intelligent person I've ever met who insists on viewing these things as binary.


----------------
> And, until you *show* me
> otherwise, by providing a rational explanation of
> psychological altruism, transcendent principles
> *are* necessary!

Why? I don't accept that altruism is either psychological or biological. I do not view human behavior as exclusively one or the other; I view intelligence, personality, career choice, and many other things as a mixture of genes and environment. It is you who are always asserting black-and-white alternatives for creatures whose behavior is best described by statistics and usually by one or more sumperimposed bell curves.


-------------
> Let's start with the basic assumption
> that you implicitly adopt here; the assumption
> that all of human behavior must be explainable in
> materialist terms.

I did not imply that; it is not my basic assumption. I have never said that "all of human behavior must be explainable in materialist terms" and hence feel no need to defend that viewpoint.


-------------
> Evolution does not, and
> cannot, explain how someone like a member of the
> Nazi resistance, would willingly sacrifice their
> life for complete strangers in opposition to both
> their biological survival heritage and their
> cultural background.

This is bizarre on several levels. First, you repeat the canard that the unit of selection in evolution is the individual. No serious scientist believes that. And why do you assume that a Nazi resister is fighting both his genetics and his culture? For many people culture emphasizes the need for moral behavior even in opposition to the group. Thomas Moore was not contravening his culture: he was honoring it.


----------------
> You need transcendence of
> some sort for such an explanation. But, then, as
> I have said many times, consciousness itself is a
> transcendent property of human beings;

Yes, you have said that many times. You have not proved it, however, and the proposition may well be unnecessary. I am agnostic on transcendence. I just won't join you in refusing to see the evidence, and understand the scientists, about the significant part of altruism that reflects biological imperatives.


----------------
> as is
> freewill. So, why not morality?

I don't accept free will, morality, or consciousness as "transcendent properties of humanity." They may be, but they may not. I await further empirical evidence on that point and in the meantime will not be deluded by sweeping generalizations.


-------------
> Thank you for your comments, LW. I hope you and
> your family are well.

We thrive, and I hope you do too.

> COMMENT: This doesn't explain anything. A "cluster
> of genes" that is not specifically identified as
> associated with a specific trait, not to mention a
> specific environment, is nothing more than an
> assumption without substance.

So you do not think there is a genetic basis for human intelligence?

COMMENT: I do not think that human intelligence can be explained solely by genetics, or for that matter neuroscience. In the first place, human intelligence involves consciousness, thought, and reasoning; and such things are certainly NOT explained by genetics or neuroscience alone. But more importantly, there are aspects of human intelligence, for example creativity, that are not computational, which suggests that there is something more involved.
________________________________________________

----------
> Moreover, a
> statistical curve is so ubiquitous in nature, of
> itself it also has no explanatory value for a
> behavior beyond the statistical conclusion itself.

There is no evolutionary scientist or biologist or psychologist or physicist who believes this.

COMMENT: O.K. Please provide me with some statistical fact about human behavior that explains the efficient cause for such behavior. Statistics provides information about the range or extent of the behavior within a specified data set, but says nothing as to its cause. For that you need empirical evidence of causation. This is why the soft sciences--which rely more upon statistics are more speculative about the details of causation.
____________________________________________
--------------
> COMMENT: Again, NO! Altruism comes in two
> varieties, biological or evolutionary altruism,
> and psychological altruism. (See Sober and
> Wilson, Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology
> of Unselfish Behavior) Only psychological
> altruism involves morality because it is
> associated with the decisions of conscious agents.
> Your assumption that evolutionary altruism, as
> found in social insects, adequately explains
> morality in humans is just false!

Your assumption being that there is a hard line between other social animals and humans. That is empirically false. These things are distributed statistically across and within species--but of course if one denies the role of statistical analysis in science, as you just did, empirical reality doesn't matter.

COMMENT: There *is* a hard line between social insects and conscious, humans. Insects are presumably not conscious, and do not make conscious decisions between alternative behaviors. They do not make moral judgments, and have no sense of right or wrong. I don't think this is controversial. And I did not deny a role for statistics in science. But you have to make a distinction between statistical conclusions from the data of some human behavior from the causes of that behavior. The fact that humans statistically are more altruistic with respect to their relatives, as opposed to strangers, does not explain the mechanisms associated with that distinction; and pointing to "evolution" does not add to the explanation one whit.
____________________________________________
--------------
> COMMENT: No. Dawkins use of the word "selfish" to
> describe selfish genes, had nothing to do with
> altruism. The gene was the unit of selection, not
> the individual or the group.

Of course Dawkin's analysis was about altruism. The only reason to resort to the gene as the unit of selection was because altruistic behavior renders the individual the wrong unit of selection. He was explaining why individuals violate their own survival imperative.

COMMENT: This is a misreading of Dawkins. Altruism--even with respect to social insects--requires some form of group selection. Thus, the group becomes the unit of selection. Dawkins emphatically denied group selection, so there is a problem here. Now, there are a lot of subtleties with respect to these issues, but the bottom line is that neither The Selfish Gene, or The Blind Watchmaker, were concerned about altruism per se; and altruism is an explanatory problem in all theories of evolution that deny group selection.
________________________________________

------------------
> In fact, Dawkins
> denied group selection, at least initially. And,
> last time I checked, no one makes a moral
> distinction, or engages in kin altruism, because
> they are concerned about propagating their genes.

That is to miss the point. People do a lot of what they do for reasons they don't understand. (Does that even need to be said?) Much of that is precisely because of genetic inclinations that are extremely powerful and yet so complex that no one comprehends how they work. Dawkins' purpose was to explain the logic behind what for the macro-organism illogical behavior.

COMMENT: To say that "People do a lot of what they do for reasons they don't understand" is to miss the point entirely. People do a lot of things purposefully, intelligently, and freely; including engaging in altruistic behavior that flies in the face of evolutionary principles. To provide a counter example of non-purposeful behavior hardly addresses this issue. Dawkins' purpose was all-encompassing. He wanted to have evolution explain all of biological behavior. That carries a heavy burden, which neither he or anyone else, has met.
_______________________________________________

-----------------
> COMMENT: I don't know the answer because there is
> none. Evolution implies that humans will engage
> in intercourse to whatever extent necessary to
> enhance reproduction.

Evolution does not imply that at all. It implies that organisms, whether COVID-19 or primates, behave in a manner that is likely to perpetuate the survival and expansion of specific genetic components. Nothing more.

COMMENT: But all of that is fundamentally based upon behavior that maximizes that goal; survival and reproduction. If then, you see behavior that does not appear to satisfy that goal, an explanation is required; some story as to how what appears to be non-adaptive behavior is in fact somehow adaptive. Sweeping statements about the scope of evolution, or wildly just-so evolutionary stories, do not meet that challenge.
_________________________________________
--------------------
> To suggest that "familial
> and social stability" *biologically* is selected
> for as an adaptation overriding this natural
> tendency is both ludicrous and desperate;

The problem disappears if you give up the nonsensical notion that the natural human tendency is to "engage in intercourse to whatever extent necessary to enhance reproduction." The unit of selection is the gene and not, as you claim, the individual.

COMMENT: See above. According to basic evolutionary principles, we would expect humans to engage in such behavior; i.e. behavior that enhances the reproduction of their genes. Now, we can see that they do not do that; there are restraints to such behavior. So, given that uncontroversial fact, what is the evolutionary explanation? If the restraint is culturally based (environmental), fine, say that. But don't tell me that there is some additional story that places the explanation in the selfish gene. And similarly, if human beings just have a moral sense that constrains such behavior, don't tell me that that is also in the genes. Geezes, at some point we have to just give a human being credit for making a moral decision that just goes against his or her biological interests. That is humanism!
______________________________________________

---------------
> regardless of whoever came up with this nonsense.
> It is a "just-so" story that is just another
> attempt to explain human behavior in evolutionary
> terms, whether it makes sense or not.

The selfish gene school is not a "just-so" story at all. It merely observes that patterns of macro behavior are better understood as the result of micro dynamics. Moreover, it states that some species will die out because the micro dynamics do not evolve fast enough to match changes in the macro environment. That insight explains tragedies as well as successes.

COMMENT: The "selfish gene school" (the Modern Synthesis) is full of evolutionary platitudes, like the example you state here. Now, some of these statements are insightful, no doubt. But they remain theoretical. A "just-so story" is an attempt to identify the evolutionary details in particular cases; like altruism in insects or humans. Some such explanations are indeed compelling; but others, particularly as applied to human behavior, and to my mind nothing more than wishful thinking.
____________________________________________
------------------
> COMMENT: Look, I agree that cultural is at work
> here. But, you started us off with a moral gene
> (or set of genes) and suggested that biology
> provided a nativist explanation for ouro moral
> sense, that was then "directed" by culture.

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote. My post was simply the application of the principles of all human behavior--witness intelligence, temperament, personality disorders, facility with a paint brush--to the question of morality. As I said more than once, behavior is a product of both genes and environment. If you see a contradiction in that, so be it. But then you might as well give up trying to understand the natural world because almost all of it is described by curves.

COMMENT: O.K. But when you say that all human behavior can be explained by the convergence of biology and culture, is a commitment that requires scientific justification. After all, there may be other factors involved that biology and culture do not encompass. Consciousness is just one rather blatant example of a phenomenon that neither biology or culture explains. Moreover, the intricacies of human thought and behavior,for example creativity, are also left unexplained. Cognitive science and neuroscience still have hardly touched such capacities. For me, such phenomena suggest that there is something fundamentally missing from materialist science; a view shared by many. But, however one views the matter, the excessive pigeonholing of human behavior into pre-established scientific paradigms is unscientific--even if we have to admit that scientific knowledge is limited.
_________________________________________________
------------
> What
> you are describing here is just the opposite; a
> biological trait that is suppressed by culture;
> i.e. where culture takes the lead in establishing
> moral dictates, genetics notwithstanding.

That only makes sense if one accepts your reductive assertion that human genetics programs people to have as much sex as possible with as many people as possible. Once one rejects that proposition on the grounds that there are countless examples of animals prioritizing things besides immediate reproduction, the paradox disappears.

COMMENT: The paradox disappears only if you have an alternative explanation.
__________________________________________

----------------
> Fine,
> but then leave evolution and biology out of it.
> The problem then, of course, is to explain how and
> why people deviate from cultural moral norms.

There is no paradox if you recognize that humans are driven by both genetics and environment, a point that seems so well-established that repeating the explanation should not be necessary.

COMMENT: Then, you have to be able to explain ALL of human behavior by an appeal to genetics and the environment. Not just by sweeping platitudes, but by real causal explanations identified with specific behavior--like the behavior of the Nazi resisters. What specifically was it about their genetic makeup (their selfish genes) and their culture (pro-Nazi, or anti-Jewish) that explains this behavior. Ergo, you have a problem! There is no explanatory account in such terms that makes any sense. What does make sense is the simple fact that these human beings were somehow able to exercise their freewill to rise above their genes and environment to act altruistically on moral grounds. Now, isn't that explanation much better--even if we have to sacrifice our pre-determined scientific dispositions on the alter of reason?
______________________________________
-----------------
> COMMENT: And that is why you make the moral
> decision not to abandon your children? Because
> your genes have dictated that behavior?

No, it is why most people in most communities exhibit the same pattern of behavior. There is a predilection, manifest in everything from ants to humans, in many situations to prioritize the survival of one's children over oneself. Genes don't dictate any complex attribute: they alter probabilities.

COMMENT: No. Genes--and all of biology--is deterministic, not probabilistic. You may have statistical data, but all such data is based upon determinism at the level of the gene, the cell, or whatever biological level you choose.
______________________________________
----------------
> COMMENT: That comment is offensive. Are you
> suggesting that those who resisted Hitler did so
> because "they are very smart social animals?"
> Well, not very smart if evolution is in charge,
> because they risked their lives, and often lost
> their lives, because of their "smarts."

Why do you insist on ignoring the biological research on altruism? Why do you persist in proffering the argument, long ago rejected by science, that the survival of the individual is the genetic imperative? No one believes that.

COMMENT: I do not ignore the biological research on altruism; or the sociological research; or my own personal experience. Give me one "study" that explains the efficient causes of human altruism strictly in terms of biology and culture--JUST ONE!
_____________________________________
-------------
> Why is it
> so hard to just say that human beings are
> conscious moral agents, having freewill to follow
> the dictates of their moral sense--evolution and
> culture notwithstanding?

Again, you are putting words into my mouth. There is nothing incompatible between genetic inclinations and cultural/conscious choice. You are the only intelligent person I've ever met who insists on viewing these things as binary.

COMMENT: Well, "genetic inclinations" whatever that means, are deterministic. Whatever actually happens is the result of some deterministic biological process responding to some environmental stimuli. THAT IS BY DEFINITION INCOMPATIBLE WITH CONSCIOUS CHOICE (FREEWILL) It is a matter of basic logic; freewill is incompatible with determinism because determinism by definition involves causal closure of the physical, making no room for any independent, humanistic causal component.
_____________________________________________

----------------
> And, until you *show* me
> otherwise, by providing a rational explanation of
> psychological altruism, transcendent principles
> *are* necessary!

Why? I don't accept that altruism is either psychological or biological. I do not view human behavior as exclusively one or the other; I view intelligence, personality, career choice, and many other things as a mixture of genes and environment. It is you who are always asserting black-and-white alternatives for creatures whose behavior is best described by statistics and usually by one or more sumperimposed bell curves.

COMMENT: Well, you *do* accept that when you personally perform some altruistic behavior; i.e. some behavior that is against your personal interest, that somehow YOU made a conscious choice. Did you decide to do this, or did your genes and the environmental context determine this result? You cannot have it both ways. Statistics offers no help here. Your personal decision is not statistically based; and even if it were it would still be deterministic. When physicists invoke statistical mechanics to explain the behavior of a gas in some vessel, they are not claiming that the behavior of each molecule of gas is NOT deterministic; that they are each making choices.
_________________________________________________
-------------
> Let's start with the basic assumption
> that you implicitly adopt here; the assumption
> that all of human behavior must be explainable in
> materialist terms.

I did not imply that; it is not my basic assumption. I have never said that "all of human behavior must be explainable in materialist terms" and hence feel no need to defend that viewpoint.

COMMENT: But you did, indirectly. When you said that human behavior can be explained by genes (biology) and the environment, you said just that; because each of those items are at bottom materialist structures and interact with each other deterministically.
________________________________________________

-------------
> Evolution does not, and
> cannot, explain how someone like a member of the
> Nazi resistance, would willingly sacrifice their
> life for complete strangers in opposition to both
> their biological survival heritage and their
> cultural background.

This is bizarre on several levels. First, you repeat the canard that the unit of selection in evolution is the individual. No serious scientist believes that. And why do you assume that a Nazi resister is fighting both his genetics and his culture? For many people culture emphasizes the need for moral behavior even in opposition to the group. Thomas Moore was not contravening his culture: he was honoring it.

COMMENT: First, the unit of selection in evolution is still highly controversial. Many still insist that the organism is the unit of selection; but that's another debate. If you want to insist that whatever a person does is the product of his or her culture; without defining culture in specific societal terms, then you can "explain" anything. An individual's "culture" becomes disassociated with the society, and encompasses whatever is necessary to explain the behavior, including that person's personal experiences. "Culture" represents the environmental norms of the society. Thomas Moore acted within a culture that insisted upon subservience to the king, which he defied, and which was against his interest (he lost his head) Thank you for this additional reminder of transcendent moral behavior in opposition to culture and biology.
__________________________________________

----------------
> You need transcendence of
> some sort for such an explanation. But, then, as
> I have said many times, consciousness itself is a
> transcendent property of human beings;

Yes, you have said that many times. You have not proved it, however, and the proposition may well be unnecessary. I am agnostic on transcendence. I just won't join you in refusing to see the evidence, and understand the scientists, about the significant part of altruism that reflects biological imperatives.

COMMENT: I cannot prove it. But I do think that science itself points in this direction; and that this direction is irrationally resisted by science because they are more interested in maintaining the scientific process that in acknowledging what must be true given human experience.
----------------
> as is
> freewill. So, why not morality?

I don't accept free will, morality, or consciousness as "transcendent properties of humanity." They may be, but they may not. I await further empirical evidence on that point and in the meantime will not be deluded by sweeping generalizations.

COMMENT: If freewill, morality and/or consciousness exist, they are transcendent properties. The reason is that there is no scientific, materialist, paradigm that explains these "facts" even in principle. They require entirely new concepts with a new understanding of reality. Surely, after all the scientific floundering on these issues, we have learned that much.

Thank you again, LW. This thread between us I would think to be extremely important to people on the Board, and I hope that everyone here will read and consider the points made by both of us.

"Morality" is a weapon used by the weak-minded to attack progress. Morality without quote marks is simply human decency and honesty. That it's rare says more about us than any word could ever do.

I'm saddened that this has to be 'explained'; to me, nothing is more clear than the lessons of the new testament, specifically
the parable of the parable of the good Samaritan; also the Hippocratic oath: 'First, do no harm'.

'therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.'

I've heard (all?) the objections ('men' vs 'persons', etc), and I don't care!

morality is, or should be nothing more being nice, Honest, Kind, and respectful.

Christians (and a few others) have the Golden Rule,

Dalai Lama is quoted as saying 'My religion is kindness'

what possible value could there be with amplification, addition, or modifying?

I.Don't.Get.It.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2020 11:22PM by GNPE.

"Christians (and a few others) have the Golden Rule" ...
which was stolen from Confucius.

So What? Really, why is the origin an issue?


What about what the Dalai Lama said?

Do those things have to be 'original' to be good morals, good values?

seriously, Why / are they 'better' somehow?

Everything about christinsanity has been stolen from other religions. Are you promoting theft again ?

It’s called “cultural appropriation”. Hey, Linda Rondstadt got away with it.

I commit as many felonies as I want to.

There is one more felony I would like to commit.

But I don't know where you live.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2020 03:17AM by Lot's Wife.

do I have to furnish the weapons ?

I love when you talk dirty, but didn’t Utah make it a misdemeanor?

Murder? I don't think so.

I’m so glad you’re not considering polygamy. I think Porter Rockwell’s place has a well where you can dump the body.

da more you miss da meaner you get.

I will take that statement literally, rather than following the various innuendos, and assure you that I am a very good shot.

So you'd better watch your step, Mr. Atheist!

To me it's extremely clear that morality doesn't come from people. We aren't born knowing what's right and wrong. Here's a perfect example:

Recently I was at work talking to my friends, One of my friends told me he's raising furry animals to kill and eat, and then described to me how he murders these animals with his bare hands. I thought to myself boy this is awful, I would never do that to a furry friend, even if I was starving. Now according to Christianity he's justified in doing that. According to my inner feelings it's terrible, gruesome, and gross. If People relied on themselves for what's right and wrong then vegetarianism would be the way to go. And killing animals would be a moral sin.

Obviously morals don't come from people. People did not have morals before religion came along. Morals come from a higher source.

Is there such a thing as 'morality'?
If so, where does it come from?
If not, what's to keep me from committing felonies, besides the threat of jail time?

COMMENT: When you put the question this way, it begs the question as to what you mean by "thing." Presumably, you mean some sort of objective existence such that there is a relation of some sort between our moral sense; i.e. our sense of right and wrong, and this objective moral essence. Of course, if one thinks that morality is "all in the mind" and that morality exists only as the moral sense most humans have been endowed with by evolution, then you are left to explain how this moral sense came to be in the first place. Enter the evolutionary psychologists and social scientists to spin their just-so stories attempting to find an adaptationist explanation for the existence of this moral sense. Personally, I find such explanations rather contrived and lacking scientific merit on evolutionary and other grounds.

Back to the ontological question, "Is there such a thing as morality?" as an objective essence. If there indeed is, there is nothing in modern science or nature that obviously exhibits such a thing, other than the fact that humans act as if there is. When we make moral judgments, for ourselves and others, we are not merely stating what we "think" is right or wrong; we are stating what we "know" to be right or wrong. For example, the murder of a child is thought to be objectively wrong, regardless of what any person or society might otherwise think. Of course, explaining just why this is so, is the paradox associated with your questions.

Personally, I believe that there *is* some objective, ontological status of morality that transcends what individuals or societies believe, or feel; and regardless of how elusive such a "thing" is to define. The reason I believe this has nothing to do with religion. The alternative is nihilism. Without a foundational grounding that provides moral stability in the face of moral relativism, morality fails to establish moral authority, and thus evaporates as the source for moral judgments of right and wrong. For me, our moral intuitions tap into this transcendent reality in some way; and coupled with our inherent free will (also transcendent), our moral judgments become meaningful.

Just so:

morality seems an apodictic force

and since when has it ever been an aphrodisiacal force?

Human, proslogionically yours

Hi Human:

I was with you all the way up to "proslogionically." I had to think about that for a while.

"Pros" was easy enough. But, then, I was stumped by logion? With some thought I came up with "non-canonical," as in outside the bounds of the traditional sayings about the matter. But then, I instinctively wanted to get to "logic" so, this is what I finally came up with:

"Proslogionical" "One who pleasantly defies or extends beyond the standard writings on a matter in favor of logic and reason."

How am I doing?

In any event, that said, I am, proslogionically yours, as well!

HB

Nodding to Anselm, actually.

But I like your puzzling out better.

There has to be such a thing as evil for it as it is dependent upon that concept. I don't think evil exists. We humans have an innate ability to relieve emotional stress via hurting other fellow humans often in a hierarchical arrangement.

We tolerate "bad behavior" due to our hierarchical natures when it conforms to organizational structures large groups of humans approved of.

Mormonism lives there. Nope no morality.

and thus be able to charge $8.50 for a beer...

Of course there is a distinction between a good and a bad thing. I think the question is superficial however. I think you should ask instead what defines a good or a bad thing?

Yes.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course there is a distinction between a good
> and a bad thing. I think the question is
> superficial however. I think you should ask
> instead what defines a good or a bad thing?


OK, I'll ask you Jacob,
How do you tell the difference between good and bad?

To me it's an obvious answer,
my conscience, which is based upon empathy for others, which is based upon my social responsibility, primarily to my loved ones, but also to those with whom I depend upon to earn a living, my co-workers and clients.

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2020 01:37PM by schrodingerscat.

Exactly right!!

"...based upon my social responsibility, primarily to my loved ones, but also to those with whom I depend upon to earn a living, my co-workers and clients." Which explains:

Honor Killings

The Hatfield-McCoy relationship

Monopolies

Strike breaking

Smallpox-infested 'free' blankets!

Trading glass beads for gold trinkets

Paying as little as you can for as much as you can get

hoarding

shooting strangers

informal bridge tolls

bribery



Basically, if it's for a purpose that has the approval of people who like us, the sky is the limit!!

Ah, the arbitrary root of all moral systems begins to be revealed.

You tell us.

What keeps people from going mad? Probably themselves.

What keeps them from going happy? Probably themselves.

It keeps some people dumb just as it keeps others smart. The rest of us are simply caught in between, with no morality - or mortality - anywhere to be found.