Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[inocente]

Respectfully, your appeal to semantic is not convincing. It still dies the same death because it’s still an appeal to common “anything”.

I’ll re-cite:

That’s the end, I’m afraid.

Why are you afraid?

The Wikipedia article on common knowledge begins “Not to be confused with common sense”.

Common knowledge is discussed in this MIT article. Very different from common sense, which for example, is the sense not to play with traffic or put your hand in boiling water.

Common sense might get it wrong sometimes but when it tells a child not to jump off a cliff, and not to push anyone else off, that’s not a fallacy.

“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” - Romans 2

Is Paul talking of common sense there? If not, then what?

 

[inocente]

Upon reflection, there would seem to be three identifiable sources of human morals. For the sake of this thread I’ll define them as follows.

1. Common sense.
2. Authoritative edict.
3. Survival of the fittest.

The first one is often expressed as simply “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. The second one attempts to use a position of authority to codify the first one. And the third one ultimately decides which of these codified sets of morals, is the “correct” set of morals.

But in the end, any set of morals that doesn’t encompass all three is almost certainly doomed to fail.

I agree with you up to a point.

Common sense may be wrong, but any moral theory which conflicts with common sense is certainly disputed more than those that don’t.

We all discuss morality (presumably because seeking group consensus is an evolved trait), so authority can be a valid source where it doesn’t conflict with conscience.

Altruism and cooperation are evolved behaviors which contribute to group survival. But then tribalism is too. Asked about Trump and rising nationalism, the Pope said “Hitler didn’t steal power, his people voted for him, and then he destroyed his people”.

 

[Vonsalza]

Upon reflection, there would seem to be three identifiable sources of human morals…

1. Common sense.
2. Authoritative edict.
3. Survival of the fittest.
   …any set of morals that doesn’t encompass all three is almost certainly doomed to fail.

Number one is invalid on the basis that’s it’s clearly an example of the ad populum fallacy which is pithily summarized as “Just because ‘everyone’ thinks something’s true doesn’t make it so”. Maintaining the “common sense” fallacy requires violation of an atheists supposed adherence to rationality.

Numbers two and three are “right of might”. The authoritative edict is authoritative because if you break it, you will face harsh consequences from the authority you defied. If you successfully defeat those consequences (police, military, whatever) - congratulations. You are now “right” by virtue of “might” as well - confirming the theory. If you successfully ran away, the authority is still “right” by virtue of “might” - again confirming the theory.

Survival of the fittest is “I get to eat you and take your things because I can”. “Right of might”.

As you describe 1, it’s the only one that’s valid.

By literal definition, it is invalid. Argumentum ad populum. If your conclusion is still provably sound, it wasn’t because of the the ad populum fallacy you supported it with. It was because of some other argument you didn’t or can’t identify.

But the golden rule is one of the requirements for the development of morality.

The GR only reinforces the morality it is nested in. It was used extensively by the imperialism of the 19th century. “If I was a poor savage, I’d want some wise, civilized society to ‘show me the way’”. A la “White Man’s Burden”.

…I don’t think someone should be granted an insight into the validity of moral decision simply because he’s a lot bigger than me.

You misunderstand. The big man doesn’t get to tell you what is wrong on the basis that he’s bigger. He gets to take your things and sleep with your wife on the basis that he’s bigger; like if you were a lion. A la “Natural Selection”.

Altruism and cooperation are evolved behaviors which contribute to group survival. But then tribalism is too.

I absolutely could not agree more. The underlying motive is survival, not anyone’s arbitrary definition of “goodness”. “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins is a good book on the topic.

 

[Bradski]

I absolutely could not agree more.

Uh? You’ve spent I don’t know how many posts telling us that altruism is not innate and now you are agreeing that it is.

 

[Vonsalza]

Uh? You’ve spent I don’t know how many posts telling us that altruism is not innate and now you are agreeing that it is.

Then you’ve completely missed me (no big surprise).

“Altruism” as given by Oxford:

Altruism - Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
(Emphasis mine)

This, as an innate mechanism is absurd.

“Altruism” as “performing good deeds for others in an innate effort to alliance-build so as to further promote your own survival”, I’m in complete agreement with. The point isn’t about helping someone else. It’s about helping yourself.

That’s not “altruism” as given by Oxford…

The the closest we get to “Oxford” altruism in nature is kin-selected altruism where one creature, like an ant, will die in preservation of their colony. That same “altruistic” ant, when confronted with a non-kin ant, tries to kill it virtually without fail.
There is no need for it to alliance-build. It already has a colony. Anyone outside of it is just another competitor competing against their colony.

---

Note: For anyone reading this far down in search for an answer to the thread’s question, it is this: Appeals to “common sense” are examples of the classic fallacy “argumentum ad populum”.
Nothing is true just because “everyone believes so”.

 

[Bradski]

Altruism and cooperation are evolved behaviors…

I absolutely could not agree more.

“Altruism” as given by Oxford:

Altruism - Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
(Emphasis mine)

This, as an innate mechanism is absurd.

So when you agree with someone and it’s pointed out that you were in complete disagreement a few posts back, you say: Ah, but I’m not using the word as it’s defined in any given dictionary. I have my OWN definition.

You then go on to define reciprocal altruism, which you say is innate. It might be worth you reading this (and any other reliable text on the subject):

“Altruistic traits can evolve only when some cue allows altruists to direct benefits selectively to other altruists, and thereby increase the relative fitness of altruists.” sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213003540

So altruism evolves when there is a benefit. And it obviously needs to be there in the first instance. Something that doesn’t exist cannot evolve.

But this is the vitally important point: You do not need to be aware of the benefit (even insects exhibit altruistic behaviour) or indeed receive any. So the dictionary definition (and the one everyone except you seems to use) is entirely correct. When an insect or a fish or a bat or the guy next door acts altruistically, it is because altruism has evolved and it has evolved because those who did act altruistically survived longer than those who didn’t.

The term ‘reciprocal altruism’ was then coined to describe this process. It’s an evolutionary term.

Saying altruism is not innate but reciprocal altruism is innate is simply bizzare. It’s like saying that pumpkin pie is delicious but there’s no such thing as pumpkins.

If the discussion continues, it may be helpful if you give your personal definition of any terms used so we all know if we’re on the same page.

 

[Bradski]

Incidentally, kin selected reciprocal altruism is something of a non sequitor.

It is well known that there is a tendancy to help close family relatives. As in the selfish gene which you mentioned. There was no problem in explaining that. One could say it was, ahem, common sense. Far from being an example of altruistic behaviour, there is an immediate gain in preserving your genes. Or at least a proportion of them.

Altruism was a conundrum precisely because it was exhibited when there was zero chance of preserving ‘family’ genes. Help was given to those who had no family relationship whatsoever.

Hence the term ‘reciprocal altruism’ was developed to explain this behaviour between non related organisms. Kin is specifically not a part of the equation.

 

[Vonsalza]

So when you agree with someone and it’s pointed out that you were in complete disagreement a few posts back, you say: Ah, but I’m not using the word as it’s defined in any given dictionary. I have my OWN definition.

Sadly, Bradski, Oxford’s definition is not my own. It is the definition provided by the most widely recognized dictionary in the English language. I’ll give it again:

Altruism - Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

…So altruism evolves when there is a selfless benefit.

Thank you for making that point. Which makes it, according to Oxford, not “altruistic”, but self-beneficial.

From the same source you cite: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982213003540
“Altruistic traits can evolve only when some cue allows altruists to direct benefits selectively to other altruists, and thereby increase the relative fitness of altruists.”

Exactly! Grouping up and assisting one another can only evolve into a species’ genes if that behavior yields a benefit.

Again, from the same text you cited…
“Could you give some examples? Textbook examples of reciprocal altruism include male baboons forming coalitions to gain access to sexually receptive females that are being mate-guarded by high ranking males.”
(emphasis mine)

Are you suggesting that the male baboons grouped up for “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.” No, They teamed up for access to sex!

If young men teaming up to “bed” guarded women is an innately altruistic practice, then I concede the point. We are innately altruistic.

Do you actually read any of the posts I write or sources you cite? Or do you just scan enough to reinforce your obvious echo-chamber?

; the theory holding that behaviour of this type has evolved because is likely to increase the chances of survival or reproductive success for the apparently altruistic organism.expectation of its being reciprocated
(emphasis mine and, again, from Oxford)

“Reciprocal Altruism” is obviously a word used by researchers to describe a technical aspect of evolved behavior in an academic context. To conflate it with everyday “altruism” is a desperate attempt by atheists to “prove” through out-right deception that we are somehow “selflessly good” without religious principles. Balderdash!

---

Note: For anyone reading this far down in search for an answer to the thread’s question, it is this: Appeals to “common sense” are examples of the classic fallacy “argumentum ad populum”.
Nothing is true just because “everyone believes so”.

 

[Bradski]

You don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept here.

Reciprocal altruism IS altruism. It’s just an evolutionary term to describe altruistic behaviour that benefits the organism. Ah, you say. You see, they only do it to gain a benefit!

So do you really believe that an ant that sacrifices itself to kill insects raiding its nest thinks: ‘Well, if I survive this, someone else will step up to the plate next time’.

Do you really believe that a bat who shares his food with the one next to him thinks: ‘Well, if I give Bill some of mine, then if I’m hungry tomorrow, he’ll let me have some of his’.

Do you really believe that when a bird gives an alarm call to the flock, thus highlighting his position to a predator, he’s thinking: 'Gee, I hope I get out of this ‘cos I can relax for the rest of the month. It’ll be someone else’s turn’.

Each of these acts are purely altruistic by definition. The organism isn’t expecting a reward. It doesn’t do the acts with the expectation of a benefit. Hells teeth, we’re talking insects and bats and fish for heaven’s sake.

Whether benefits accrue or not, it is altruistic bahaviour. But benefits DO accrue because if they didn’t, the organism exhibiting ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOUR wouldn’t survive to pass on the genes that prompt it into such behaviour. And the term used in evolutionary literature to describe these altruistic acts is ‘reciprocal altruism’.

Now, if you think that insects, fish, birds and bats are smart enough to think about possible pay backs, then good luck with that.

This is a very basic evolutionary concept and what you are doing is simply showing that you don’t fully understand it. Evolution is no longer a banned subject on this forum, but I’m really not sure that I have the patience or the inclination to explain this further.

 

[Vonsalza]

In sum:

The belief in “innate altruism” as the “natural tendency of people to do ‘good’” boils down to this: are these two things synonymous?
Both from Oxford:

Altruism - Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.

; the theory holding that behaviour of this type has evolved because is likely to increase the chances of survival or reproductive success for the apparently altruistic organism.expectation of its being reciprocated
[emphasis mine]

Bradski’s view necessitates that they are. Which is why his view is incorrect and why the statement “Humans are innately altruistic” without any further qualification is deceptive at best, if not outright false.

---

Note: For anyone reading this far down in search for an answer to the thread’s question, it is this: Appeals to “common sense” are examples of the classic fallacy “argumentum ad populum”.
Nothing is true just because “everyone believes so”.

 

[Bradski]

I think I will bring my (name removed by moderator)ut into this rather frustrating episode with a simple quote from, albeit wiki, and then I’m done.

Originally introduced as a concept by biologist Robert Trivers, reciprocal altruism explains how altruistic behavior and morality can arise from evolutionary causes, as evolution selects for the best possible game theory results.

 

[Vonsalza]

Ergo, “innate human altruism” is not simply the “disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others”. It’s not “doing good for good’s sake”.

It’s more correct that “innate human altruism” is described as “behavior that benefits another unrelated organism, carried out in the expectation of reciprocation”.

In that way, “innate human altruism” bears an element of “quid pro quo”.

Thanks for the chat.

---

Note: For anyone reading this far down in search for an answer to the thread’s question, it is this: Appeals to “common sense” are examples of the classic fallacy “argumentum ad populum”.
Nothing is true just because “everyone believes so”.

 

[EnosJadon]

Note: For anyone reading this far down in search for an answer to the thread’s question, it is this: Appeals to “common sense” are examples of the classic fallacy “argumentum ad populum”.
Nothing is true just because “everyone believes so”.

Forgive me Vonsalza, but this bit at the end of your posts is really beginning to irk me.

Because if it’s true, then every argument for “Intelligent Design” is an “argumentum ad populum”, because they all appeal to common sense. And every argument from “First Cause” is also an “argumentum ad populum” because they too appeal to common sense. In fact the vast majority of arguments in defense of the existence of God would constitute “argumentum ad populum” because they simply appeal to common sense.

But the truth is, that an appeal to common sense isn’t an “argumentum ad populum”. Common sense isn’t based upon what’s popular, it’s based upon what’s self-evident. Just as you would argue that it’s common sense that that which is designed requires a designer. And it’s common sense that a series of causes can’t go on forever.

So please, stop with the whole “argumentum ad populum”. It’s ridiculous.

 

[Vonsalza]

Forgive me Vonsalza, but this bit at the end of your posts is really beginning to irk me…
…So please, stop with the whole “argumentum ad populum”. It’s ridiculous.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

The only purpose is so someone index-searching the topic in the future when this thread is long-dead won’t have to parse the thread for the answer. When someone clicks these links, I assume they generally go to the last couple posts just like I do.

The last posts here have been tangential to the thread topic, so it’s pertinent and a courtesy.

Also, I do not support the notion of intelligent design. Fire up a thread if you wish to discuss that or any topic you mentioned. I’ll be happy to engage.

Thanks.

---

Note: For anyone reading this far down in search for an answer to the thread’s question, it is this: Appeals to “common sense” are examples of the classic fallacy “argumentum ad populum”.
Nothing is true just because “everyone believes so”.

 

[po18guy]

There is no atheist who has not been at least partially formed by the surrounding Judeo-Christian ethic. It is in the rejection of that ethic, in the development of a personal ethic, that suffering enters the world.

 

[Bradski]

There is no atheist who has not been at least partially formed by the surrounding Judeo-Christian ethic. It is in the rejection of that ethic, in the development of a personal ethic, that suffering enters the world.

So no atheists in S E Asia or the Pacific Islands or the Sub Continent. No atheists in aboriginal Australia or the US. No atheists in pre Christian society.

It seems odd to me that you think that you need a Judeo-Christian ethic to reject before you can classify yourself as an atheist.

Maybe you think that an atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in your god.

You need to think again.

 

[Vonsalza]

So no atheists in S E Asia or the Pacific Islands or the Sub Continent. No atheists in aboriginal Australia or the US. No atheists in pre Christian society.

It seems odd to me that you think that you need a Judeo-Christian ethic to reject before you can classify yourself as an atheist.

Maybe you think that an atheist is just someone who doesn’t believe in your god.

You need to think again.

Bradski is right.

Plenty of atheists in history don’t come from Judeo-Christian societies. Many of the 60 million murdered in China under Mao’s state atheism were born with an exclusively Taoist background. Most had no idea the Christian God even existed.

As to the new thread title, it IS a code word. It likely represents anything a given culture has come to accept as “true” on a societal basis.

But that’s not the same as sound, objective truth.

If you want to use a particular tenet of “common sense” in an argument, you’ll have to find and dust-off the original argument that rationalized it into “common sense cannon” in the first place - if it exists! You may be occasionally surprised to find that the original argument is total garbage and the common Chinese belief “that boiled elephant tusks will cure my woes” is only perpetuated via its false appeal to “common sense”.

To quote Pschology Today, “‘Common sense’ is neither ‘common’ nor ‘sense’”.

Using an argument exclusively on the basis of “common sense” is an ad populum fallacy.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/

 

[EnosJadon]

The only purpose is so someone index-searching the topic in the future when this thread is long-dead won’t have to parse the thread for the answer. When someone clicks these links, I assume they generally go to the last couple posts just like I do.

I might buy this explanation if “argumentum ad populum” was mentioned anywhere in the OP. Or if it wasn’t patently absurd. Or if it wasn’t completely disingenuous. Or if it wasn’t openly hypocritical.

But it’s all of those things. You’re simply appealing to common sense to argue that it’s wrong to appeal to common sense.

Surely even you realize that that’s absurd.

If you’re going to put a synopsis of the OP in every post you write, at least make it sensible.

 

[Vonsalza]

I might buy this explanation if “argumentum ad populum” was mentioned anywhere in the OP.

It is the definitive answer to the OP, thus it bears direct relation.

Or if it wasn’t patently absurd. Or if it wasn’t completely disingenuous. Or if it wasn’t openly hypocritical.

Cognitive dissonance is a natural reaction to a dearly-held tenet being shown as demonstrably false, so I understand your feelings.
As to accusations of hypocrisy, that is an ad hominem fallacy. A person who failed his math class can still assert “y=m(x)+b” because a person and their ideas are two separate things per Aristotelian logic.

But it’s all of those things. You’re simply appealing to common sense to argue that it’s wrong to appeal to common sense

No I’m not. I’m appealing to semantic. And per semantic, “common sense” is a form of the ad populum fallacy. You’d have to argue that the definition of “argumentum ad populum” is wrong. Given the enormous scrutiny the rules of logic inherently receive, good luck.

If you’re going to put a synopsis of the OP in every post you write, at least make it sensible.

The sooner you accept “an appeal to common sense is a fallacy” will be the sooner you reformulate your arguments without it. Which will make your arguments unambiguously stronger. This is a boon, not an attack.

 

[EnosJadon]

The sooner you accept “an appeal to common sense is a fallacy” will be the sooner you reformulate your arguments without it. Which will make your arguments unambiguously stronger. This is a boon, not an attack.

At least you’ve stopped putting that ridiculous blurb at the end of your posts. I’ll take that as confirmation of the fact that you know that I was right. No matter how vehemently you deny it.