Question for Non-Believers

[KingMarc]

Question to all those non believers....

Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong. Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in? Doesn't that seem somewhat strange?

Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong? Don't say because it's against the law, because throughout history, there have been some laws that may seem right at the time, but in the absolute sense are wrong (example Nuremberg Laws).

[chezlaw]

Believer and non believers both have a sense of right and.

If non-believers cannot appeal to the law then believers cannot appeal to a supreme being (much the same thing really).

The question is where this sense of right and wrong comes from god/evolution etc which is the same question as where intelligent life comes from.

chez

[KingMarc]

[ QUOTE ]
\
The question is where this sense of right and wrong comes from


[/ QUOTE ]

That was essentially my question (I worded it badly). God set forth what is right and wrong..in the Ten Commandments, Noahide Laws, the Bible, etc.

People who do not believe in God, cannot believe in the above Works as that would be exactly the opposite of what they believe.

If you do not believe the Ten Commandments were given by God, then by logic, they had to have been given by man. Why, thousands of years later then, does humanity as a whole still believe that killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

If nothing Absolute said that killing is wrong, then killing would not be wrong. It is the same as Joe Schmoe saying poker is illegal, no one would listen to him. However, let us say thousands of years ago, poker was outright said to be the same as killing someone. Would there be less poker players? Yes. Would people still play poker? Yes..just like some people still murder others.

Just some thoughts

[BluffTHIS!]

Marc, there was some discussion of this in a previous thread I started which can be found here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=scimathphil&Number=2744293 &page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

[chezlaw]

Evolutionists would argue that groups with moral instincts were more succesful than amoral groups. Survival of the fittest then leads to strong moral feelings even though it allows amoral individuals to florish as well.

Much the same as the instinct to nuture offspring. Where did that come from? Is there a commandment from god that the parents should defend their babies at all costs?

[ QUOTE ]
That was essentially my question (I worded it badly). God set forth what is right and wrong..in the Ten Commandments, Noahide Laws, the Bible, etc.

People who do not believe in God, cannot believe in the above Works as that would be exactly the opposite of what they believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That does not follow. Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong. Its also easy for the non-believer to argue that god is made up and the bible just layed out moral codes already accepted by man. Such a created god is sometimes refered to as the nobel lie.

chez

[lastchance]

Because evil dominates good, but I'd rather live good in a good society, than be evil in an evil one.

[[censored]]

the question of god aside. I do not think it is unreasonable to assume that laws and concepts like right and wrong could advance and evolve the same way technology does. Slavery would be one such example. It follows that more destructive an act is to ability for man to form a society, murder for example, the sooner it would be deemed as "wrong".

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that's what theists (claim to) do.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know that Shana Hiatt is hot?

The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments just like it's designed to make judgments about sexual attractiveness. We don't need any gods to chime in with some kind of official list in either case.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists would argue that groups with moral instincts were more succesful than amoral groups.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not really correct. The unit of selection is the gene, not the group. "Good for the group" always leads down the wrong path in evolutionary analysis.

[chezlaw]

[face saving waffle] Good point but its hard (for me anyway) to phrase an answer in terms of genes. At an imprecise level the idea is the same [/face saving waffle] /images/graemlins/blush.gif

chez

[mrgold]

I am a utilitarian and beleive something is right or wrong based on its impact on humanity (or whatever subset of creatures you are willing to assign value to). Moral principles are secondary to human happiness and are only important as a coordiantion mechanism by which societies net utility (happiness) can be maximized if we all agree to follow them (e.g. no murder, respect for property, etc...).

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

the concepts of wrong and right by definition could never be proved. your question is rather silly.

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]

The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Why should the brain be designed by evolution to make moral judgments? If one considers the currently accepted evolutionary model the brain should have been designed to conduct itself in such a way as to preserve its host body with no "moral" consideration at all.

Society is a very new thing. Why does right and wrong have any benefit for survival? What was right and wrong before there was any society to apply it to? The only factors in evolution should be 100% pragmatic. If right and wrong happen to coincide with the correct practical survival decision then fine, but otherwise it's useless complication and I don't see why evolution would design it in... you'd think evolution would design it out just as quickly as possible.

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

the concepts of wrong and right by definition could never be proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. I hoped it would be obvious that this is what I'm trying to say. I wanted chezlaw to tell my why murder is wrong (without God, in particular), because he seems to think it is reasonable to think this.

So, chezlaw or anyone else, I'd like to see something that defends the belief that murder is "wrong" (in a strictly moral sense - no societal pragmatism) and that holding such a belief is rational.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its consistent to not believe in god yet believe that murder is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove to me that murder is wrong in a purely moral sense? Purely moral meaning without any attached social considerations. That is: yes, it's generally considered bad for society, by is it an act that can be considered "wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

the concepts of wrong and right by definition could never be proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. I hoped it would be obvious that this is what I'm trying to say. I wanted chezlaw to tell my why murder is wrong (without God, in particular), because he seems to think it is reasonable to think this.

So, chezlaw or anyone else, I'd like to see something that defends the belief that murder is "wrong" (in a strictly moral sense - no societal pragmatism) and that holding such a belief is rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a person does not hold the belief that murder is wrong, then is can never be so to that person.

[drudman]

Men invented the golden rule. It was erroneously credited to a metaphysical entity.

But men invented it. For the reasons they thought that the God they wanted to worship should command it, I too live according to it.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Men invented the golden rule. It was erroneously credited to a metaphysical entity.

But men invented it. For the reasons they thought that the God they wanted to worship should command it, I too live according to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't you argue that for it to work, that is to convince people on a mass scale it should followed, sometype of God and punishment & reward system was necessary?

Could the concept of God be considered one of man's greatest inventions?

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
If a person does not hold the belief that murder is wrong, then is can never be so to that person.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're saying exactly what I am saying, that there is no way to prove moral implications to someone. I will add: this is true, specifically in the case of no god involved.

If you don't mind me asking, how would you justify your moral position on murder? From other posts you seem to think that it is reasonable to consider moral implications, so that is why I ask. One could consider effects on society and there are conclusions to be drawn from that, but that is not what I'm talking about.

What specifically makes murder "wrong" apart from all practical considerations.

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
Men invented the golden rule. It was erroneously credited to a metaphysical entity.

But men invented it. For the reasons they thought that the God they wanted to worship should command it, I too live according to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you do this for practical reasons (because the favorable results can be observed/measured), or because you feel it is "right?" Or both?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Question to all those non-believers....

Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong? Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in? Doesn't that seem somewhat strange?

Basically I'm asking... how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

To borrow from Moby's, Everything is wrong. ...In your post, I mean.

ONE
Another poster wrote in this thread "The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments just like it's designed to make judgments about sexual attractiveness." But this is not exact!

There is no evidence of any kind of "design", intelligent or otherwise (our understanding of intel might be ridiculous in cosmic terms, for all we know) behind the grand scheme of things. We mistake complexity for intelligence, something that would render Fritz 9.0 intelligent. Our brains are complex (we cannot fathom yet their workings) but the fact that we make moral judgements does NOT mean that we would definitely, necessarily, at some point in time make moral judgements.

To simplify: If, a hundred thousand years ago, an outside observer possessing more knowledge of math and anthropology than humans ever had, was watching the process of evolution on Earth, and he was watching [censored] Sapiens starting to take his first tentative steps, he could NOT predict, not in any kind of deterministic manner, that the creature [censored] Sapiens would one day make "moral judgements". He could predict that Man would probably evolve into one smart mo-fo, but not one that would make "moral choices". Nothing as such was in the cards. Nothing is in the cards even now.

TWO
We have created morality. By intelligent/intellectual endeavours and (loud drum roll) choice.

Humanity evolves like a half-blind flock, in mass movements across timelines and geography, and across the landscape of ideas. We are making individual choices, more freely or less freely than we imagine. (We cannot even know yet the extent to which the chemicals dictate choice.) But, the fact remains that, in general, it is us that have made the choices that took us out of the caves, our of the sacrifice temples, and now out of the churches. The very fact of us making the choice means that "the beautiful room is empty", which is a premise scary enough to render religion necessary, practically inevitable.

When you are belittling the example of others in our making a moral choice, you are mocking the very way human evolve and progress.

THREE
When all is said and done, it is better to be making one's own choice, just as our Athenian ancestors practiced, of our own will, rather than to have a "choice" imposed by some higher authority! What much joy can a slave take from obeying his master?

God instructs Abraham to kill his son Isaac, because this would prove Abraham's loyalty to a higher authority (an authority in everything, from cosmic engineering to morality). And Abraham obeys, the poor dumb f*ck.

The anti-Abraham stance, the true humanist stance, would be to receive such a message from the "carriers of the higher authority" and then make a choice on the basis of one's own free will and, specifically, on the basis that the very existence of that "higher authority" is not an undeniable fact. Hence, human morality. (Not the higher authority's morality, but human morality.)

I know some folks compare the two sets of moralities, god's and humans'. One morality is seemingly weak, arbitrary, with shaky foundations (us), while the other is seemingly strong, clear and with lots of guarantees -- hell, it's carved in stone! People compare the two moralities (which do not necessarily contain mutually exclusive arguments) just like they compare the power held by a lonely sheriff and the whole FBI.

But the line to the Bureau has been dead for a hundred and fifty years, folks.

FOUR
Prometheus challenged the gods and stole the fire. Ever since, we are alone, with the fire inside us, travelling at an ever accelerating, dizzying speed towards an unknown destination, if there is one, and seeing only a couple of meters ahead of us at any time. At any time, we can take many wrong turns (which some will blame on the giher authority's wrath or plans), every which one can plunge us into catastrophe or regression to childhood or worse.

A fascinating, glorious, scary, totally strange trip.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]


Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]



We don't avoid "bad things" because of some inert moral. We do whatever is in our best interest, period. To answer your question, I most likely won't kill anyone because there are very few situations where that would be in my best interest.

Bluffthis' response links to a post where i expressed most of my views on this subject, but i'd like to add another interesting example to further illustrate this point.

Lets say you were to offer me some amount of money to have my father instantly die. Now, I would only refuse your offer because there is no monetary value that can provide me with the happiness that my father does. Not because of some moral!

If, for example, my father does not provide me with happiness, perhaps he molested me or something, then, maybe some monetary value would make me happier than my father's presence in my life. Therefore, under these circusmtances, i would accept your offer.

Futher, lets say there is a neutral figure involved. For example, lets say that you would pay me some amount of money to have a person to whom i have no association with be instantly killed. Someone who neither positively or negatively impacts my life. So, assuming there are no other reprucssions to accepting the offer (i.e. may impact society in a way that negatively effects me), and i felt that a specific monetary value would prove to make my life happier than that person's existence, i would accept your offer.

Simply put, anytime i equate the value of X (happiness) to be more worthy than the value of Y (happiness) I will surely choose X, regardless of any morals.

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]



We don't avoid "bad things" because of some inert moral. We do whatever is in our best interest, period. To answer your question, I most likely won't kill anyone because there are very few situations where that would be in my best interest.

Bluffthis' response links to a post where i expressed most of my views on this subject, but i'd like to add another interesting example to further illustrate this point.

Lets say you were to offer me some amount of money to have my father instantly die. Now, I would only refuse your offer because there is no monetary value that can provide me with the happiness that my father does. Not because of some moral!

If, for example, my father does not provide me with happiness, perhaps he molested me or something, then, maybe some monetary value would make me happier than my father's presence in my life. Therefore, under these circusmtances, i would accept your offer.

Futher, lets say there is a neutral figure involved. For example, lets say that you would pay me some amount of money to have a person to whom i have no association with be instantly killed. Someone who neither positively or negatively impacts my life. So, assuming there are no other reprucssions to accepting the offer (i.e. may impact society in a way that negatively effects me), and i felt that a specific monetary value would prove to make my life happier than that person's existence, i would accept your offer.

Simply put, anytime i equate the value of X (happiness) to be more worthy than the value of Y (happiness) I will surely choose X, regardless of any morals.

[/ QUOTE ]

I applaud your candor and logical consistency (despite not coming to the same conclusions myself). I simply do not understand when people say that god is irrational, yet contend that morals are rational. With the arguments of god not being able to be observed, measured, etc. the same things are true of morals.

The choice will typically be both or neither.

[David Sklansky]

"Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong."

You are repeating a Not Ready Post and I'll answer it the same way. We'll see if you can add something he didn't.

Basically I said "OK you can't. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of a supreme being."

And this time I'll add "Suppose there were only animals. Now it is certain that there is no intrinsic right or wrong for them since they can't understand God's commandments. Does that decrease the possibilty that a supreme being created them?

[usmhot]

"We don't avoid "bad things" because of some inert moral. We do whatever is in our best interest, period. To answer your question, I most likely won't kill anyone because there are very few situations where that would be in my best interest."

And indeed the logic is even more subtle and far reaching.

There have been times in our history when murder was far more commonplace and far less 'regulated'. In other words, there have been times when the morals of killing were not as extreme as now. But, we moved on from those times, mostly for purely pragmatic reasons.

First, if there is no 'regulation' of murder then it is far more likely that I will be murdered - just on the numbers alone. If I live amongst 1000 people, and there's no reason for me not to be murdered then there is a very high probability that I will be.
So, I choose to find a way to agree with those 1000 other people that nobody should be murdered, to decrease the chances that I will be murdered.

More subtly, apart from finding a way to 'regulate' murder the alternative is for me to wipe out the others to improve my chances. But in wiping out the others I expose myself to a much higher chance of being murdered - so that's not really an option.

Even more subtly, the death of one of my loved ones would cause me grievous pain. So, if I live in a family of 10 people and murder is 'unregulated' then there's a very high chance that I will have to face that grievous pain.
So, I choose to find a way to agree with those 1000 other people that nobody should be murdered, to decrease the chances that I will face that pain.

Even more subtly. Human society evolved because it was to our mutual benefit that each person specialised in some specific endeavour that benefited the survival of the group. Specialising for an individual became viable because even though it meant taking attention away from other endeavours that were necessary for survival those endeavours were being carried out by other specialists - to mutual benefit. BUT, in this case, the murder of someone who is meeting some specific need of mine that I am relying on is bad for me.
So, I choose to find a way to agree that nobody should be murdered, to decrease the chances that I will lose an essential survival skill.

'Morals' is just the word we use to describe the underlying agreements that we have made for those pragmatic reasons.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong. Do you merely just follow what others (who believe in absolute morals) believe in? Doesn't that seem somewhat strange?

[/ QUOTE ]

The implication of this post is that we would follow a supreme beings will without question. For many of us this is simply not going to happen.

If a supreme being said (via the holy book, whatever) "you shall beat down the women and the Jews", then would tham seem to be a moral stance to you?

Morals don't come from some dictum on high. They come from a sense of empathy for our fellow man and a desire to see those around us live in such a way that we are not subject to some horrible fate.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So, chezlaw or anyone else, I'd like to see something that defends the belief that murder is "wrong" (in a strictly moral sense - no societal pragmatism) and that holding such a belief is rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said murder is wrong, just that its not inconsitant to not believe in god and to believe murder is wrong.

Murder is normally taken to mean something like wrongful killing so its leans towards being wrong by definition. But unless its by definition I do not think it makes sense to claim moral beliefs are irrational or rational.

chez

[K C]

I really need to get in this one /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Simply put, we can derive codes of ethics, and indeed have, without the assistance of religion. As a matter of fact, I'd much prefer ones based on things like rationality than the perhaps misguided folk who claim that God spoke to them. Nowadays these people would be ridiculed and put on medication /images/graemlins/smile.gif

KC

[Piers]

It amazes me how so many people have the same blind spot as you. It is really not difficult.

[ QUOTE ]
Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

One has a hard wired internal process that determines right and wrong. To not have such would in my opinion be a mental illness.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you merely just follow what others

[/ QUOTE ]
Ones inbuilt process for determining right and wrong can be influenced by others, especially during childhood, but also times of stress or personal upheaval.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically I'm asking..how do you know killing, stealing, etc. is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don’t kill and steal because I don’t want to. Same reason I did not have a bowl of sand for breakfast.

What disturbs me is people who believe that they do not kill or steal because of a belief in retribution by some God.

It suggests that they either are unable to think rationally about the situation and their own motives or have a mental illness. If they lost their belief they would become dangerous members of society (or conversely.)

I suspect for most who share your confusion, the problem is an inability to think rationally about the issue. I certainly hope so, but I could be wrong, it can be difficult to empathise with people who minds seem to work so differently to mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't say because it's against the law, because throughout history, there have been some laws that may seem right at the time, but in the absolute sense are wrong (example Nuremberg Laws).

[/ QUOTE ]

To only be prevented from “killing and stealing” by a ‘legal system’, is just as worrying as needing a religious belief..

[ QUOTE ]
Question to all those non believers....

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-believers?

1) Absolute moral laws.

2) Existance of God.

3) Life after death.

The above three always seem to be linked. They are independent concepts. No God is needed for life after death, just that the sort of person who needs a belief in one, normaly needs a belief in the other.

[BZ_Zorro]

[ QUOTE ]
Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
A brain and a conscience.

Someone who can't explain why killing, stealing etc is immoral/wrong without invoking God scares me far more than any atheist.

[durron597]

To the OP: I do believe in God, but it is not my belief in God that defines my morality (I'm not afraid of being punished by God if I'm bad).

That said:

People get their morality by being in one of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Doing what's right because of what God tells you to do is stage 1.

http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberg.html

[bronzepiglet]

I don't believe the existence the concepts of morals proves or disproves god. I believe that is is possible (maybe unlikely, but I'm not sure) that moral ideas could have developed without god.

I don't believe the OP said anything about morals proving god. If I'm reading the questions right it's asking how someone can justify their moral views. You seem to agree that one can't. I don't know where other considerations entered in.

While we're on the subject... you suggest in PG&L (from what I've heard... I've been meaning to pick it up) that it is morally contemptible to follow laws only because of the danger of being caught. I take this to mean that there is a purely moral dimension to the situation entirely apart from practical considerations. From what I've read you do seem to indicate that god, if god exists, could be interested in moral issues. Does Sklanskyanity justify your moral assertions or something else?

The question is less a challenge and more curiosity.

[KingMarc]

[ QUOTE ]
"Without a "Supreme Being" how do you decide what is right and wrong."

You are repeating a Not Ready Post and I'll answer it the same way. We'll see if you can add something he didn't.

Basically I said "OK you can't. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of a supreme being."

And this time I'll add "Suppose there were only animals. Now it is certain that there is no intrinsic right or wrong for them since they can't understand God's commandments. Does that decrease the possibilty that a supreme being created them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Animals were not given the thought process and ability to choose between right and wrong. Your argument is moot since there *are* people who can distinguish between what is right and acceptable, and what is wrong. If there were no humans that could distinguish this, your argument is valid. However, the existance of additional creatures that cannot has no impact on the argument.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy, but can't think of any good ones. Here's an attempt though.

Gravity pulls objects towards the large body of mass that is the Earth. This is always true. Now assume someone bounces a ball, and it bounces up into the air because of the force when it hits the ground. Does this mean gravity no longer exists? No it doesn't.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The human brain is designed by evolution to make moral judgments

[/ QUOTE ]

?

Why should the brain be designed by evolution to make moral judgments? If one considers the currently accepted evolutionary model the brain should have been designed to conduct itself in such a way as to preserve its host body with no "moral" consideration at all.

Society is a very new thing. Why does right and wrong have any benefit for survival? What was right and wrong before there was any society to apply it to? The only factors in evolution should be 100% pragmatic. If right and wrong happen to coincide with the correct practical survival decision then fine, but otherwise it's useless complication and I don't see why evolution would design it in... you'd think evolution would design it out just as quickly as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your whole post is entirely factually incorrect. I am not lying to you about this.

If you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue or Robert Wright's The Moral Animal.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Animals were not given the thought process and ability to choose between right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you." The Golden Rule, one of the first lessons we learn as children, is at the heart of many of the world's religions, political systems and societies- and not just human societies.

In "Chimps Getting Along," Alan Alda and renowned primate behaviorist Frans de Waal observe a group of chimps who live by the Golden Rule at the Yerkes Regional Primate Center in Atlanta, GA. The alpha male, Jimoh, and dominant female, Peony, keep the peace, while other adult chimps make sure the young ones know what's acceptable behavior in chimp society and what's not. It's not much different from a human tribal society.

When adolescent Georgia steals food from the group, she's left alone to eat in peace. But, according to de Waal, the chimps keep track of who's selfish and who's generous. Hoarders like Georgia will be rejected in times of need, while chimps who share are paid back with reciprocal sharing or grooming sessions. De Waal likens these behaviors to human morality.

Yet, there's hope for young Georgia; she's still learning. Reprimanded by Jimoh, Georgia sees the error of her ways and extends her hands in apology.

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1108/segments/1108-3.htm

(For much more detail on chimp morality, see de Waal's book, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals.)

[Cyrus]

Matt, can we lose the stupid censorship rule that blanks the word "homo", please?

It renders Homo Sapiens a dirty word, you crypto-creationist!

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
When adolescent [chimp] Georgia steals food from the group, she's left alone to eat in peace. The chimps keep track of who's selfish and who's generous. Hoarders like Georgia will be rejected in times of need, while chimps who share are paid back with reciprocal sharing or grooming sessions. De Waal likens these behaviors to human morality.





[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying that, just as the case has been for all other animals, social necessity begat human morality?

Is that all ?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
So are you saying that, just as the case has been for all other animals, social necessity begat human morality?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know what "social necessity" is, but a sense of morality would not have evolved in non-social organisms.

Are you familiar with the TIT-for-TAT strategy described in Axelrod's Evolution of Cooperation? Something like that is probably the initial basis for the favorable selection of genes promoting reciprocal altruism (which, along with kin-selection, is the root of moral behavior).

[bronzepiglet]

[ QUOTE ]
Your whole post is entirely factually incorrect. I am not lying to you about this.

If you're interested in the topic, I'd recommend Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue or Robert Wright's The Moral Animal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, well I think I led this down a path that doesn't have anything to do with what we are talking about. Hopefully I can sum up what I'm trying to say...

I won't argue that the belief in moral absolutes does not have practical benefit. Also, I will not argue whether belief in moral absolutes could have been evolved (at least not in this thread anymore because it has nothing to do with this). There are definite reasons why people could say this could and should have happened. That's fine.

The only thing I'm asking is for you to prove to me is that things have purely intrinsic moral value. If you don't think they do then that's fine.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing I'm asking is for you to prove to me is that things have purely intrinsic moral value. If you don't think they do then that's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just so this doesn't get bogged down in semantics (what's "intrinsic"?, etc.), I'll ask this question as an analogy: Can you prove that Shana Hiatt is intrinsically hot?

I think moral judgments are very much like hotness judgments. There are very many easy cases on which pretty much everyone agrees (torturing innocents for pleasure is wrong, Shana Hiatt is hotter than Kathy Liebert, etc.), and this agreement is explained very well by evolutionary theory. There are also harder cases that people will disagree on (abortion is wrong, Shana Hiatt is hotter than Courney Friel).

I would say that torturing innocents for pleasure is objectively wrong to the same extent that Shana Hiatt is objectively hotter than Kathy Liebert. When we understand why our sense of morality evolved -- the sorts of problems it is designed to handle -- we can see why any correctly-functioning moral sense would judge such torture to be wrong. (Someone who tortures innocents for pleasure lacks the kind of empathy and sense of fairness that we look for in people we are willing to trust.) Similarly, if we understand that our sense of physical attractiveness is designed to make us desire partners who will produce healthy offspring, we can see why a correctly-functioning sexual desire would prefer traits that signal fertility (e.g., a smaller jaw on females, or the existence of boobs, or the absence of rough facial hair) and health (e.g., facial symmetry, a smooth skin complexion) over traits that don't.

[Cyrus]

Fine, so the initial moral constructs were the result of the necessity to live in a society. But this morality takes care of rudimentary interactions.

The big question is whence springs the morality that cannot be explained by egotistical objectives nor by social contracts. In a world devoid of an ultimate authority and arbiter of morality, such as God, does something like altruism exist in humans and, if it does, why ?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Fine, so the initial moral constructs were the result of the necessity to live in a society.

[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't a "necessity" to live in a society. Snakes don't, for example. I don't know whether I'm nitpicking or not because I don't know exactly what you're getting at in that sentence.

[ QUOTE ]
But this morality takes care of rudimentary interactions.

[/ QUOTE ]
It evaluates some extremely sophisticated interactions as well.

[ QUOTE ]
The big question is whence springs the morality that cannot be explained by egotistical objectives nor by social contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of the type of moral principle you have in mind? Is it an "egotistical objective" for a mother to risk her life to save her children? (And any "social contract" is a fiction. You won't catch me using that term.)

[ QUOTE ]
In a world devoid of an ultimate authority and arbiter of morality, such as God, does something like altruism exist in humans and, if it does, why ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course altruism exists. It's almost a direct implication of the TIT-for-TAT strategy. If I'm nice to you, you'll be nice to me; and the best way for my genes to get me to be nice to you is for them to cause me to be sympathetic and thus altruistic toward you. (This is necessarily a tremendous oversimplification, of course.)

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the initial moral constructs were the result of the necessity to live in a society.

[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't a "necessity" to live in a society. Snakes don't, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't say about snakes (where you know my cousins from??) but Man survived through forming packs/groups/societies. ("It was necessary" in that sense, and not in any kind of crass historical-deterministic sense!)

From the formation of human societies, certain social understandings about rudimentary rights and obligations (contracts) sprang.



[ QUOTE ]
Is it an "egotistical objective" for a mother to risk her life to save her children?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it mainly derives from the instict to pass on one's genes.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course altruism exists. It's almost a direct implication of the TIT-for-TAT strategy. If I'm nice to you, you'll be nice to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tit-for-tat is not altruism. Altruism does not depend on reciprocity.

So, my question remains: In a world devoid of an ultimate authority and arbiter of morality, such as God, does something like altruism exist in humans and, if it does, why ?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that torturing innocents for pleasure is objectively wrong .... Someone who tortures innocents for pleasure lacks the kind of empathy and sense of fairness that we look for in people we are willing to trust.

[/ QUOTE ]
I grab living creatures and make sure they are alive and with their full senses when I drop them in boiling water, in order that they die a boilng water agonizing death. Then I devour their meat.

I get the greatest of pleasures out of this, every single time, provided their meat is fresh and the boiling is done right.

What can one say objectively about such behavior ?

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Tit-for-tat is not altruism. Altruism does not depend on reciprocity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Altruism doesn't, but the biological evolution of an altruistic impulse does. My answer was consistent with that.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I grab living creatures and make sure they are alive and with their full senses when I drop them in boiling water, in order that they die a boilng water agonizing death. Then I devour their meat.

I get the greatest of pleasures out of this, every single time, provided their meat is fresh and the boiling is done right.

What can one say objectively about such behavior ?

[/ QUOTE ]
That it's making me hungry?

But you're not getting pleasure out of torturing those cockroaches. You're getting pleasure out of eating their meat. That doesn't make you a sadist; it makes you an omnivore.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Altruism doesn't, but the biological evolution of an altruistic impulse does [depend on reciprocity].

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do we explain pure altruism?

A chimp might leave another injured chimp to die without lifting a finger to help (eg drag him out away from the sun; take him to the water). It can even be to the benefit of the chimp to allow the injured chimp to fall behind so that the predators can eat the other fella!

When humans behave completely differently than this, and without any seeming benefit to them, what gives?

Note that, since we have evolved from purely animalistic behavior (we were exactly chimps once), our "ancestors' habits" are not in play here.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're not getting pleasure out of torturing those [lobsters]. You're getting pleasure out of eating their meat. That doesn't make you a sadist; it makes you an omnivore.

[/ QUOTE ]

No pleasure ? Well, I don't exactly get sad, now, am I? Nor am I indifferent, neutral, when I cook 'em. In fact, I'm excited and flush with anticipation. I'm salivating when I turn the heat a notch, at the appropriate interval.

I make sure they are getting cooked just right and I sometimes giggle when they clumsily try to escape their boiling little hell. Last night, when a particularly pesky specimen managed to drop out to the kitchen floor, the whole of our party burst out laughing hysterically, especially when my wife screamed.

We are not Nazis! We are in real estate.

...I'm afraid you are addressing some very niche, if imaginary, market of pure sadists, there, the ones that supposedly torture for the hell of it and then go home. Not useful this. Let's talk about the banality of evil, instead.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Altruism doesn't, but the biological evolution of an altruistic impulse does [depend on reciprocity].

[/ QUOTE ]
So how do we explain pure altruism?

[/ QUOTE ]
My original answer still stands. TIT-for-TAT means that there will be some level of reciprocity. And in a world with some level of reciprocity, altruism is rewarded. So genes causing an altruistic impulse will be successful. Again, this is a horrible oversimiplification, but it's all you need to make a mathematical model for altruism work.

[ QUOTE ]
A chimp might leave another injured chimp to die without lifting a finger to help (eg drag him out away from the sun; take him to the water).

[/ QUOTE ]
He might; so might a human. But I don't think that's normal behavior for either one. Chimps tend to help other chimps in need of help (provided the chimp in need isn't an unapologetic free-riding bastard).

[maurile]

Evil sure is banal, wouldn't you say?

[lastchance]

Well, one very good example is the tit-for-tat strategy.

There most likely is a spot where you are the chimpanzee that falls behind, and you would be happy to help the other chimp now and here in exchange for being helped in a situation just like this somewhere down the line.

I believe morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be.

[David Sklansky]

"I believe morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be."

I have already explained that to be exactly the case a number of times. End of subject. Don't ask me why these high falootin philosophers continue to talk about it.

[12AX7]

Well, therein lies the rub doesn't it.

I could argue that everything that ever happened... including crimes... *should've* happened simply because it *did* happen. That the totality of all events starting with the smallest particles and working up led to that event.

On the other hand we have idea about "morality" (which I could argue also bubble up from particles that make up our brains) that seem to argue there are "shoulds and should nots".

Most folks agree on major crimes physical crimes like murder... but maybe not. Consider cannibals...

So it would seem most all moral systems are man made and relative.

So the solid answer to your question is... "you don't know... you just believe it for whatever external reasons".

Suppose you were raised by wolves... your view on chomping on someone as dinner would be different, no? Same as a cannibal.

Now I'd say most of us. Even the aethiests here are really living a Judeo-Christian morality, or some other major religious morality simply because our cultures are so entrenched in it. Look at a dollar... "In God We Trust".

Early U.S. Case Law even cites biblical things like "The Golden Rule".

So separation of Church and State is somewhat mythological, no?

So here's my approach. Which may be almost Quaker. Morality comes from within. I decide for myself. Based on what? Well, no doubt that which was drilled into my head as a child to young to reject it, and self examination as well. But I cannot say where the emotional content comes from (except that it's the grand some total of my particular brain chemistry + brain structure changes from learning etc. i.e all the physical phenomenon that make up "me".)

Now for the most part that really means I too have Judeo-Christian morality beliefs though I state "I have no religion and may even just believe in nature and natural laws."

And at times it puts me at odds with the prevailing systems.. for I believe any law I did not explicitly agree to has potential to be coercion. Same for economic systems I an trapped in.

Now that has it's plusses and minuses. Clearly a police force trying to stop robbers is good for me, even though I did not agree to it, nor did the robbers.

But on the other hand it often intrudes on my life too... like when Wall Street and the Fed decide how to gear the prevailing economy for the benefit of the rich or the legal bodies decide I have to do something lame like register my car or worse yet decide who has to go fight wars and compel folks to fight them.

Anyway, bottom line. With or without a God, you have no solid evidence that any bit of morality is correct in any absolute sense.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I have already explained that [morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma] ... a number of times. End of subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am guessing you refer to Marquis De Sade, who was indeed a prisoner for a significant period of time.

In prison, he penned various texts, from which springs his revolutionary (for the time) morality of atheism and absolute egoism.

But De Sade had no dilemmas at all! The Divine Marquis posited his answers to all questions about morality with extraordinary clarity of prose -- and quite lucid and robustly constructed arguments.

Perhaps we ought to so something with the Marquis, now that we run out of barbarians ?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ask me why these high falootin philosophers continue to talk about it.

[/ QUOTE ] Philosophy in the bedroom (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802132189/qid=1121499132/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-4299258-3544905)

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have already explained that [morality is some construct of the Prisoner's Dilemma] ... a number of times. End of subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am guessing you refer to Marquis De Sade, who was indeed a prisoner for a significant period of time.

In prison, he penned various texts, from which springs his revolutionary (for the time) morality of atheism and absolute egoism.

But De Sade had no dilemmas at all! The Divine Marquis posited his answers to all questions about morality with extraordinary clarity of prose -- and quite lucid and robustly constructed arguments.

Perhaps we ought to so something with the Marquis, now that we run out of barbarians ?

[ QUOTE ]
Don't ask me why these high falootin philosophers continue to talk about it.

[/ QUOTE ] Philosophy in the bedroom (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802132189/qid=1121499132/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-4299258-3544905)

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? Because Prisoner's Dilemma has nothing to do with Philosphy, and is something that most poker players should know more than the average segment of the population. It's a construct of game theory, which DS references many times in his books.

Google the Prisoner's Dilemma, now. For math types, this is the reason that one should be moral.

[EliteNinja]

The Golden Rule of Agnosticism:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.