Inherent Value of life (secular)

[Bradskii]

YoungSheldon:

Bradskii explained your error perfectly. What you forget is the existence of “emerging attributes”. The properties of atoms do NOT determine the properties of molecules. The properties of molecules do NOT determine the properties of living cells. The properties of cells do NOT determine the properties of the individuals comprised of those cells.

As interesting as this is, a materialist is constrained by his/her own premises into thinking that the properties of atoms DO determine the properties of molecules, and those DO determine the properties of living cells, and those do determine the the properties of individuals – if the material world is all that exists.

This whole idea of “emerging” is a way of avoiding explaining, i.e., explaining away, how each of those layers DON’T determine the layer above while, at the same as insisting there is nothing else that does. It squirrels in the “spiritual world” at the same time as it denies the existence of anything beside the material world.

Proponents of the “emerging” view speak like some mysterious magic is active in the world since higher levels of existence just magically “emerge” without so much as a hint of an explanation being required. If it can’t be explained, let’s just call it “emergence” and be done with it.

You sound as if this magical term ‘emergence’ has been conjured up as a get-out-jail card for materialists. But it’s a commonly accepted feature of science, philosophy and even art. And it’s been accepted as a feature of complex systems for a couple of millenia.

If you want to discuss how the action of certain molecules results in specific changes in a biological cell or how groups of people can form a political party, then that is entirely feasable. But if you want to suggest that certain molecules were directly responsible for communism then you have lost me.

 

[Bradskii]

We don’t require anyone’s agreement about the morality of rape, murder, child abuse, and assorted other heinous acts precisely because these exhibit the quality of infringing on distinctively moral principles.

Moral principles don’t have much to do with empathy, but it is preferable that well-formed human beings recognize immorality and empathize with other human beings when moral transgressions occur. Empathy is not, however, a determining feature of what counts as moral or immoral.

I think that you believe morality to be something ‘out there’ to which we mostly should subscribe. But you are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. We don’t do good because it conforms with morality. We do good because that is what got us to this point - (generally) not murdering and raping and cheating and stealing. And we (generally) don’t do those things because of empathy and a sense of reciprocal altruism - don’t kill my kin and I won’t kill yours.

And our resultant behaviour is then what we class as moral behaviour.

And yes, it’s a lot more complex than a couple of simple sentences can convey. Not everyone plays by ‘the rules’ for example, so the prisoners dilema comes into play. And we have developed social, political and religious norms to cloud the waters.

But if you start with the fact that moral rules have emerged as a direct result of evolutionary procsses back in a time when we needed to form societies to survive, then you are off to a great start.

 

[HarryStotle]

I am arguing against your principle of REDUCIBILTY, nothing else.

Where have I argued for reducibility?

I am arguing that mental processes are in no way reducible to the causal processes in the material world. The properties of water correspond to the way in which the various constituent elements of water combine. It isn’t inexplicable.

Thought processes are not reducible to cause-effect interactions precisely because thoughts – beliefs, knowledge, conceptualizations, and the like – operate under a completely different paradigm. If our thoughts were merely caused we would have no assurance that they told us anything whatsoever about the world because knowledge about the world, and anything else is based upon a ground-consequent relationship. It is a logical correspondence not a causal one. One belief does not cause another, it leads us to “see” the truth of another but only if we navigate the proper logical course. And that navigation cannot be caused.

Concepts, knowledge, logical inferences and truth claims can not be attributes of matter because if they were, the fact that they were caused would completely undermine any warrant we would have for thinking they were true at all.

The attributes of water are caused – they are everywhere, under the same circumstances, identical. Thoughts cannot be caused and cannot merely “emerge” by being caused. They are not identical where they “emerge.”

In fact, the “I” or “self” occurring in this place and at this time is inexplicable because if the same biochemistry is involved in one brain as another, there would be no distinction between the “self” who is me and the “self” that is you.

Explain why the “self” that is “me” exists here and now, rather than a hundred years ago in some other place. You cannot. That is because the “I” isn’t caused by, nor explicable by, biochemistry at all, but something else entirely. That is the hard problem of consciousness in a nutshell.

 

[HarryStotle]

But if you start with the fact that moral rules have emerged as a direct result of evolutionary procsses back in a time when we needed to form societies to survive, then you are off to a great start.

You are off to a great start in terms of giving the genesis of various moral rules, but not off to any start whatsoever in terms of explaining whether those moral rules are the moral rules that all of us ought to subscribe to.

And if your strategy is useless in terms of which moral rules OUGHT to be obligatory and followed universally, then it tells us nothing about morality, per se.
Nice to know as trivia, but useless.

Your strategy is to morality what the genetic fallacy is to logic.

We don’t decide what is true or false by looking at the genesis or origin of truth claims, where they came from.

Likewise, we do not judge the quality of moral principles and precepts by looking at where and how they arose.

That would be like saying moral rules A and B should be followed BECAUSE they came to exist as a result of evolution. Really?

You want to propose biological evolution as the determiner and arbiter of morality?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

In case you are missing the point, water in its liquid state still has defined physical properties, no matter how different they are from the properties of hydrogen, oxygen ( or water vapour .)

No, buddy. I am saying that the properties of water, or vapor, or ice are NOT REDUCIBLE to the properties on oxygen and hydrogen. This is just an example of EMERGENT attributes.

Yeah, no. You have a whole new inorganic compound which comes with a whole new set of properties. To say these properties “emerge” is using an unwarranted semblant.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

But if you start with the fact that moral rules have emerged as a direct result of evolutionary procsses back in a time when we needed to form societies to survive, then you are off to a great start.

You are off to a great start in terms of giving the genesis of various moral rules, but not off to any start whatsoever in terms of explaining whether those moral rules are the moral rules that all of us ought to subscribe to.

Yes I did. And it’s blazingly simple. Even you can do it using your ability to understand what others are feeling and then deciding if it would be OK for you to suffer he same circumstances.

I’ll do it so you can follow the process.

I like my neighbours wife. And she likes me. So I think that maybe when he’s away I can get to know her a little better. But then I think of what he’d feel if he found out. And then I think about how I’d feel. And I decide it would be something I definitely wouldn’t want happening to me. So I don’t do it to him.

Here we have empathy at work - I can put myself in his position. And here we have reciprocal altruism - I don’t cheat with his wife so he doesn’t reciprocate and cheat with mine.

Now all these feelings evolved back at a time when we were working on basic instincts. But the basic instincts that mirrored those just mentioned enabled tribes to form and small societies to build. On trust. On helping each other. On respecting everyone’s property and right to privacy.

Nobody worked out how to do all this. It happened naturally. People who didn’t respect the properties of others or who took advantage of their partners or didn’t help with the hunt were ostracised. They didn’t survive as well as those that did. So those feeling became predominent. So…they were described as good.

And it works so that if you have a rule that something is immoral but I find it causes no harm to others or to me, I will reject it.

You want to propose biological evolution as the determiner and arbiter of morality?

No. As the basis.

 

[Bradskii]

YoungSheldon:

HarryStotle:

In case you are missing the point, water in its liquid state still has defined physical properties, no matter how different they are from the properties of hydrogen, oxygen ( or water vapour .)

No, buddy. I am saying that the properties of water, or vapor, or ice are NOT REDUCIBLE to the properties on oxygen and hydrogen. This is just an example of EMERGENT attributes.

Yeah, no. You have a whole new inorganic compound which comes with a whole new set of properties. To say these properties “emerge” is using an unwarranted semblant.

But that’s the term that describes the process. You have a new set of properties to the constituent parts. Water needs to be discussed as water. It’s not pertinent to discuss a body of water as a collection of sub atomic particles. Even at the atomic scale, oxygen and hydrogen have different properties to water.

And it is obviously not pertinent to discuss sub nuclear particles when it comes to discussing politics. There is zero connection. You can no more define one as a result of the other than you say say that horseshoe nails are relevant to the stability of kingdoms.

 

[HarryStotle]

No. As the basis.

It doesn’t rise to that level. It does a poor job even explaining the genesis of morality in human civilization.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

No. As the basis.

It doesn’t rise to that level. It does a poor job even explaining the genesis of morality in human civilization.

Feel free to bring another explanation to the table that better explains our basic moral views. While I’m down the pub…

 

[HarryStotle]

And it is obviously not pertinent to discuss sub nuclear particles when it comes to discussing politics. There is zero connection. You can no more define one as a result of the other than you say say that horseshoe nails are relevant to the stability of kingdoms.

That is correct, but largely because there may actually be zero connection between sub-nuclear particles and politics. And that because politics didn’t “emerge” from sub-nuclear politics.

Citing “emergence” is sleight of hand that tries to assert a connection without ever having to demonstrate it, and then waving away that failure by saying stuff like “not pertinent to discuss,” or “not relevant,” despite “zero connection.”

Of course, the supposed connection is too far removed to trace, so we’ll conveniently just assert that it exists and call it “emergence.” Voila!

 

[HarryStotle]

While I’m down the pub…

Appears that you’ve been there a while.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

And it is obviously not pertinent to discuss sub nuclear particles when it comes to discussing politics. There is zero connection. You can no more define one as a result of the other than you say say that horseshoe nails are relevant to the stability of kingdoms.

That is correct, but largely because there may actually be zero connection between sub-nuclear particles and politics. And that because politics didn’t “emerge” from sub-nuclear politics.

But that was what you imply when you say that if everything there is is just particles then nothing has value. Obviously politics has value in itself and that value has no connection with the value of sub nuclear particles. But one has emerged from the other. Obviously kingdoms have value in themselves and but they don’t depend on nails. Even though you can find a tenuous and emergent connection between them.

So you are correct in making a connection. It’s not too far to trace (just like nails and kingdoms). But nobody would suggest to Richard III that his kingdom is meaningless because it just depends on nails. It doesn’t.

Category error.

 

[HarryStotle]

That is correct, but largely because there may actually be zero connection between sub-nuclear particles and politics. And that because politics didn’t “emerge” from sub-nuclear politics.

The value of politics doesn’t come from sub-nuclear particles, nor did it emerge from sub-nuclear particles.

If politics has any real value that value must come what is real and substantial. If the material is all there is, ultimately all values are a mirage, a chimera, a fantasy, without any real basis in reality.

You can carry on with the pretence, if it makes you feel better, but at least recognize it as pretend and nothing more.

 

[HarryStotle]

So we can tell what is wrong and here come the principles we use to do so: Empathy and the golden rule. You know how that person will feel being sexually assaulted and you know that you wouldn’t want to feel that way yourself. So you don’t assault women and you it is encumbant upon you to prevent others doing so. Whether that person declares it to be a moral position or not.

Empathy is not a principle, it is more like having a subjective emotional response. You can’t base a morality on that because it is very difficult to monitor empathy if empathy becomes the grounds for your moral judgements.

How do you know when your lack of empathy for a person or position is just or not if you have made empathy, itself, your benchmark?

And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. (Luke 6:33)

Admittedly, empathy makes a nice, warm, compelling basis for morality because it keeps potentially moral individuals attached to their moral decisions, but it presumes those individuals are good moral agents to begin with. What if they are not, then empathy could become distorted towards one’s own subjective preferences and no longer objective in terms of how others ought to be treated, regardless of how we feel about them.

In short, yes we ought to be empathetic towards those being treated unjustly, but our empathy isn’t what determines whether they have been treated unjustly. Justice, objectively speaking, ought to decide that, and our empathy ought to be based upon our sense of justice, not vice versa.

 

[Bradskii]

How do you know when your lack of empathy for a person or position is just or not if you have made empathy, itself, your benchmark?

You either have empathy of you don’t. You are either a normal member of society or a psychopath. Empathy is NOT a feeling of sympathy for someone’s misfortune.It’s simply the ability to understand what someone else is feeling.

Based on that you can make decisions on how to react. And that’s where reciprocal altruism comes in.

In short, yes we ought to be empathetic towards those being treated unjustly, but our empathy isn’t what determines whether they have been treated unjustly. Justice, objectively speaking, ought to decide that, and our empathy ought to be based upon our sense of justice, not vice versa.

You are again misusing the term empathy. You mean sympathetic, not empathetic.There is no such thing as ‘ought to be empathetic’. It’s like saying we ‘ought to feel cold’. So you cannot base your empathy on anything, let alone justice.

But because you know how other people are feeling - a sense of empathy, we have a basis for formulating justice.

And what was your explanation for morality which discounts mine?

 

[PRmerger]

Bradskii answered this very well. Your approach is very commendable and totally futile. Not even all Catholics accept the “abstain until you want children”.

I am simply curious, which is more important, the prevention of abortions, or prevention of unwanted pregnancies? Are abortions equally “sinful” as “contraception”?

Mind you, I already agreed with your new, improved assessment about the development of the brain. Before that happens, there is no human “person”, just a blob of cells, which - under some circumstances - will develop INTO a human person. So up until that deadline, abortions do not get rid of a human person.

(Co)incidentally (?), I happened to see this on Facebook today. It seems to be a very judicious approach to decreasing abortions. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, that would work, too. Just like total abstinence. Of course it also presupposes that the woman (or girl) would also be happy to carry that fetus to term. And that is far from being a “given”.

I’m confused as to why you are so rigid and fundamentalist about my suggestions but so liberal and loosey-goosey with your suggestions.

Both your and my solutions are not perfect, will fail, and will also stop some abortions, so…

 

[ascetic]

I’m probably the wrong guy to answer this, and I hope this answer actually helps. If not, I apologize in advance. Just disregard and rest assured that I’m trying to help. I’m assuming you mean human life, especially since I’m answering with such a general, birds-eye view.

You could try the loyalty angle. Since we’re all humans, we have an obligation to support and defend other humans, like when the dugouts empty for a fight in a baseball game. With regard to the unborn, you could mention that they’re the weakest, most vulnerable, 100% unable to protect themselves. You could point out that even animals protect their young, like when you try to throw bread crumbs to baby geese. lol, I actually made that mistake recently!

I don’t know if that helps any or how far it would go. In my own experiences, I have never got anywhere with them, hence my initial disclaimer, so I guess just take all this for whatever it may be worth.

 

[PRmerger]

… so we can start to analyze which one is more efficient and more practical.

Why would we do that? Why not do both?

Fundamentalists always insert an either/or when a both/and would do just fine.

I do not reject your suggestions. I support them. Just point out their shortcomings.

Fair enough.

Can you offer what are some of the shortcomings of your solution?

I have one:
To expect that everyone would be willing to abstain (I mean, use birth control) is possible (theoretically) but not likely.

To expect that everyone would be willing to abstain and to assume that every woman would be happy to carry the fetus to term are both possible (theoretically) but not likely.

Can you give a secular reason for being against contraception? If you are against it, of course.

I am against artificial birth control.
Because it is wrong to defeat the end to which an action is ordered towards.

So, sex is ordered towards babies and bonding. To thwart either one, is to engage in an activity which is disordered.

Just like, for example, your stomach is ordered towards digestion. To use it for, say, a container for your batteries (that you can conveniently regurgitate up when you want to use them) would be…disordered.

 

[PRmerger]

Indeed. Now we can make next logical step forward and analyze which solution is more likely to occur, and which one brings the higher amount of desired outcome (fewer abortions). But as we both agree, they are not mutually exclusive.

Or…we could just acknowledge that there are MANY ways to decrease abortion…esp since you’ve admitted that there’s no reason which demands we choose only 1.