Absolute Morals and evolution

[RJT]

I (and others) say Absolute Morals don’t exist if no God. Others say they either do/can/might exist on their own. Chez, kid, M to the 6th, et al what say you to the following:

Perhaps, survival of the fitness and/or natural selection is the Moral Absolute if no God.?

If this is so, what does this entail? Does any life form have the Absolute right to destroy any “enemy” it deems fit. Are there parameters for this? Is it ok to kill or rule over other life forms simply because we can and/or choose to? Do we have a right to direct selection within our own species?

Man kills animals for food. Do we have a moral obligation to kill only for food? What about when we kill more animals than we can eat? Does this extend to plant life - all life forms?

Do we have the right to kill other life forms that do not endanger us (man)? Do we have the right to kill life forms because they endanger us? Why is it ok for Nature to select which species survives? Why can’t man decide too what species survives? Can we? We seem to direct this evolution to an extent anyway? We try to eradicate diseases. Is that “fair” to natural selection?

How “naturally selective” is evolution now that the life from of homosapiens has evolved?

Are there Absolutes for evolution - are we ignoring them? Should we ignore them if it benefits our species?

Even if this is not a Moral Absolute - how do we still answer these questions "ethically"? Should we try to at all - or is that anathema from an evolutionary point of view?

Questions about absolute morals are really boring me as they may not exist, and if they do there is nothing different I (or you) are going to do differently as we are already acting according to the moral standard we feel is valid. Chez has this issue right, in that sense. So to be quite frank, all your blustering (and NotReady's) about absolute morality only possible through God is a completely moot point. I do what is "right" by my conscience and reason. Whether that is "absolute" or "relative" is irrelevant as nobody can show what is "absolute" anyway.

I'll address the specific questions related to your post later. Got to watch more White Sox now.

[bocablkr]

I agree that without a final arbiter (god if you will) there are no absolute morals. Since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in absolute morals.

But that does not mean that moral standards don't exist. Standards do exist. Right and wrong based on those morals exist. The standards may vary among different cultures but generally share many similar values. Murder is probably wrong in most societies. Perhaps if we find life on another planet their morals would be totally different from ours.

Standards evolve along with the species. What is acceptable today may not have been in the past or even in the future.

As for killing animals - I personally have a problem with killing for any other reason except food. But is it wrong? To me yes - to the present standard - probably not.

[RJT]

Just to set the record straight - I only entered the AM discussion. I didn’t bring the subject up. Especially as I never thought there was anything to discuss relative to it.

So let’s forget about AM relative to evolution. Any thoughts on the rest - that is man more or less “messing” with evolution?

Just so your p.s about watching the game - no problem.

[chezlaw]

As I've said I doubt the existence of AM but here's a thought.

'I don't want to cause needless suffering'

is a moral fact about me. The argument against AM usually takes the form 'but what if someone wants to cause needless suffering, then it would be ok' but maybe thats the wrong way to think about it.

Could any rational person want to cause needless suffering?

It may be that to understand the concept of suffering in others requires a level of empathy which makes you not want to cause it without some other need.

Then an absolute moral law would be.

'It is immoral to cause needless suffering.'

chez

[RJT]

I only heard Dawkins talk for a few minutes in an interview (hope I can catch the rerun - interesting chap) and he seems to feel the same as you, chez.

Two things:

[ QUOTE ]
Could any rational person want to cause needless suffering?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the question for a minute, what about those that are not rational? The insane for example - or those that simply chose not to be rational.

[ QUOTE ]
'It is immoral to cause needless suffering.'

[/ QUOTE ]

What about “needed” suffering? If I need you to suffer for a bit so I can experiment on your brain - is that ok? Or some other extreme (even not so extreme) example.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I only heard Dawkins talk for a few minutes in an interview (hope I can catch the rerun - interesting chap) and he seems to feel the same as you, chez.

Two things:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could any rational person want to cause needless suffering?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ignoring the question for a minute, what about those that are not rational? The insane for example - or those that simply chose not to be rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Insane probably, in the same way the insane could believe they are Napolean or 2+2=5.

Pretending to be insane doesn't make any difference. Someone who pretends to believe they are Napolean, doesn't believe they are Napolean. Similarly, someone who pretends not to recognise that needless suffering is wrong does recognise that needless suffering is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
What about “needed” suffering? If I need you to suffer for a bit so I can experiment on your brain - is that ok? Or some other extreme (even not so extreme) example.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't pretend to have nearly all the answers, I'm not even claiming that the initial bit is true, but I think it depends [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

It may not even depend, the answer may just be no (its the answer I like the most)

That Dawkins chap is too clever by half.

chez

[RJT]

I would like to ask Dawkins (like I said, I only caught the end of the interview and I don't think he addresses it anyway - I'll have to do a search on the net) why "needless pain" is so (only) important to him. (Not that there is anything wrong with that.) That does seem to be a line in the sand to not cross - and probably the only line that "can" be drawn (to the atheist) theoretically, perhaps. Maybe it is just because we are human and "feel" it. Obviously, one can't argue against drawing any line at all.

I believe morality is relative. However, in a certain situation, there may very well be a definite/absolute right or wrong thing to do. But, being finite beings, we can't really know what that would be. We just make a best guess.

I outlined my morality in a previous post, but here it is:

* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering
* Something is RIGHT/MORAL to the extent that it was intended to do GOOD
* Something is WRONG/IMMORAL to the extent that it was intended to do BAD

Living in a shared reality, what is good to me, may be bad to you. So, in the utilitarian sense, we must somehow estimate the total amount of good or bad in any situation to determine the right thing to do.

Chez's statement about it being wrong to needlessly cause suffering, fits in with my moral precepts. Causing suffering is bad. Needlessly would mean that it was not causing a greater good. Therefore, increasing suffering, while not increasing happiness is bad (and wrong if it's intentional).

I agree with the 2nd poster that even if there are absolute moral codes, we can't know them. And, I have yet to hear any that are universal, unconditional, and apply to any and all situations.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe morality is relative. However, in a certain situation, there may very well be a definite/absolute right or wrong thing to do. But, being finite beings, we can't really know what that would be. We just make a best guess.

I outlined my morality in a previous post, but here it is:

* Something is GOOD to the extent that it increases happiness or decreases suffering
* Something is BAD to the extent that it decreases happiness or increases suffering
* Something is RIGHT/MORAL to the extent that it was intended to do GOOD
* Something is WRONG/IMMORAL to the extent that it was intended to do BAD

Living in a shared reality, what is good to me, may be bad to you. So, in the utilitarian sense, we must somehow estimate the total amount of good or bad in any situation to determine the right thing to do.

Chez's statement about it being wrong to needlessly cause suffering, fits in with my moral precepts. Causing suffering is bad. Needlessly would mean that it was not causing a greater good. Therefore, increasing suffering, while not increasing happiness is bad (and wrong if it's intentional).

I agree with the 2nd poster that even if there are absolute moral codes, we can't know them. And, I have yet to hear any that are universal, unconditional, and apply to any and all situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever come across a moral precept in which causing needless suffering isn't bad/wrong?

And why do you think BAD is bad (if you see what I mean)?

chez