Moral Behavior

[Tantum_ergo]

You might find interesting Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape, where he explores the implications of what neuroscientists are discovering about our evolution of behavioral patterns.

Your posts strike me as coming from someone not aware of all of our findings in this area of biology. Social animals – unsurprisingly – have codes and rules that they follow, “hardwired” into them by the evolutionary process (i.e. their ancestors who were inclined to cooperate tended to survive – strength in numbers and all that – and passed on their cooperative genes).

For example, wolf packs have rather strict codes of behavior. There have been cases where we’ve observed wolves being literally exiled from the pack for violating one of their “laws” (one of the most serious being never to attack the young of the pack).

So, given all of this, it’s completely unsurprising that humans – being cooperative animals – similarly have a sense of “morality” hardwired into them naturally.

Sometimes, I use the analogy of a game of chess. Is there a “best” move in the game of chess? For example, is Knight to Q3 always the best move to make? It would be silly to declare one “the best” for no reason at all. But given a specific goal and a specific set of circumstances, it’s quite possible to determine the move or moves that would be the best ones to allow you to reach the goal (and it’s certainly possible to identify the ones that would absolutely hinder reaching that goal).

Similarly, our societies tend to be made up of people with common goals (cooperate, have private property, not get killed). Given those common goals and a specific set of circumstances, it is very possible to determine what we should be doing and what we clearly should not be doing and what we should try to discourage through laws.

Doubtlessly, someone will object, “But…but…that’s not absolute!” And of course it’s not. The universe doesn’t give two quips about what people do. There’s no cosmic record keeper watching you and marking ticks in his book when you do “good” things or “bad” things: “good” and “bad” are terms we’ve invented for discursive convenience – they don’t designate absolutes or imperatives.

And if you’re uncomfortable living in a universe like that, then too bad. You don’t get to choose what reality is like.

Actually, I’m quite aware of the topic.

So exactly how did humanity and all the other ‘species’ on this planet manage not only to leap into existance but to leap in with hardwired code?

Where again is your ‘evidence’ that the "universe’ doesn’t give two quips about what people do?

You’re managing to take actual scientific data (a collection of both facts and theories) and then try to juxtaposition your own opinion into a ‘truth’ that there is no God. Just some ‘universe’ that came from nowhere and is going to nowhere yet from this random chaos has ‘evolved’ beings who exist with ‘purpose’. . .even though at the end that ‘purpose’ leads to nothing again but chaos. . .

I think you need to be more aware of the advances that theologians have made over the years in studying humanity!

 

[AntiTheist]

So exactly how did humanity and all the other ‘species’ on this planet manage not only to leap into existance but to leap in with hardwired code?

They didn’t “leap into existence.” They all developed very slowly from a natural process called evolution – which is, in contrast to what you apparently think – not a random process.

We know that evolution – which is a fact, by the way: the word “theory” in science denotes an explanation of observed facts that is well-supported by evidence – is true because the amount of evidence for it is massive. Francis Collins, a Christian and a pretty famous scientist who is the head of the human genome project, has said that “nothing in biology makes sense without evolution” and that even without the fossil record, the evidence from DNA alone is enough to confirm evolution. You might find it useful to read Richard Dawkins’ recent book The Greatest Show on Earth, which covers the evidence for evolution nicely.

Of course, even if we didn’t have such a good idea of where the diversity of species and their coding came from, it still wouldn’t make religious claims any more likely to be true.

Where again is your ‘evidence’ that the "universe’ doesn’t give two quips about what people do?

You’re confused about how evidence works. It’s not up to me to prove that the universe doesn’t care – the burden of proof rests with those who think that this vast universe of billions upon billions of galaxies, stars, and planets, could possibly care about one species on one planet that happened to evolve more than twelve billion years after the universe began.

When you look at things from the big picture, the whole idea of “morality” as anything other than a human invention for discursive convenience becomes laughable.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Hi AntiTheist. Thank you for mentioning Francis Collins. He is on the Vatican’s Scientific Advisory Committee along with 40 Nobel Prize winners. You may wish to update your comment about him. “Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. is the *former *director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). On August 17, 2009 he was sworn in as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).” (genome.gov/10000779)
Francis Collins also wrote a book entitled, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents
Evidence for Belief. I have yet to read his book. I don’t know if I have room for another book in my home at this time since I have over 4,000 books. This 50 plus year old woman loves to read! I’m a collector of rare books. Have a nice day and thanks for sharing.

 

[Betterave]

When you look at things from the big picture, the whole idea of “morality” as anything other than a human invention for discursive convenience becomes laughable.

Of course, when you “look at things from the big picture,” the whole idea of “looking at things from the big picture” as anything other than a “human invention for discursive convenience” also becomes laughable.

 

[AntiTheist]

"Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. is the *former *director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI).

I stand corrected.

Francis Collins also wrote a book entitled, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. I have yet to read his book.

I haven’t read it, but I’ve read reviews of it and excerpts, and it doesn’t appear particularly impressive in terms of arguments for the existence of a god.

To be clear – in case it wasn’t already – I was citing Collins as a high profile Christian who acknowledges that evolution is a fact. I was mentioning it to a poster whose posts suggest that he isn’t familiar with the facts that we know how the diversity of species came about and how they were “wired” by the process of evolution. I wasn’t claiming that all of Collins’ opinions are correct. Those of his opinions not supported by fact – like, for example, his religious opinions – I don’t accept.

Back to the thread topic.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I stand corrected.

I haven’t read it, but I’ve read reviews of it and excerpts, and it doesn’t appear particularly impressive in terms of arguments for the existence of a god.

To be clear – in case it wasn’t already – I was citing Collins as a high profile Christian who acknowledges that evolution is a fact. I was mentioning it to a poster whose posts suggest that he isn’t familiar with the facts that we know how the diversity of species came about and how they were “wired” by the process of evolution. I wasn’t claiming that all of Collins’ opinions are correct. Those of his opinions not supported by fact – like, for example, his religious opinions – I don’t accept.

Back to the thread topic.

Well, I too know evolution is a fact and religion is a fact. You haven’t read Collin’s book yet, but you have already pre-determined Francis Collins book is based on opinions. Is it fair for me to conclude that images and thoughts that flow through one’s consciousness only conclude mental life undetermined by causal forces external to itself? Are you saying that gaining absolute clarity is perhaps an impossible task?

 

[AntiTheist]

You haven’t read Collin’s book yet, but you have already pre-determined Francis Collins book is based on opinions.

I told you that I have formed my impression of his arguments on the basis of reviews and excerpts that I have read. It’s not a prejudgment – it’s a judgment based on evidence.

I would sit down and read the book if reviews consistently said that he brought something new to the debate, but there’s no indication that that’s the case.

Is it fair for me to conclude that images and thoughts that flow through one’s consciousness only conclude mental life undetermined by causal forces external to itself? Are you saying that gaining absolute clarity is perhaps an impossible task?

I cannot figure out what you’re trying to say here. If you really want an answer, you can try to rephrase. It might be better to do over PM so that we don’t clutter the thread.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

I told you that I have formed my impression of his arguments on the basis of reviews and excerpts that I have read. It’s not a prejudgment – it’s a judgment based on evidence.

Reviews and excerpts from Collin’s book has enabled you to make a judgement though you haven’t all the evidence. However, you want me to read Richard Dawkins’ recent book The Greatest Show on Earth. If I thought like you then I should just read the reviews and excerpts of every book. lol!

I would sit down and read the book if reviews consistently said that he brought something new to the debate, but there’s no indication that that’s the case.

What is the debate you are talking about? Is it about evolution? If so there is no question that evolution is a fact. My background is in science. If you think my religion doesn’t support science then you are incorrect as noted in my first message to you.

I cannot figure out what you’re trying to say here. If you really want an answer, you can try to rephrase. It might be better to do over PM so that we don’t clutter the thread.

Apparently, you think of it as clutter though it was you that brought up Francis Collins. It’s a fruitless endeavor for me to try to explain scientifically your casual reasons. Human , all too human individuals like you, whose vanity leads to expect homage even while they issue specious claims to knowledge.

Hint for you, dear AntiTheist: If you aren’t able to figure out what I’m saying it’s because you don’t have a clue what philosophy is about.

 

[AntiTheist]

Reviews and excerpts from a book has enabled you to make a judgement though you haven’t all the evidence.

If you think that one cannot form a fairly accurate picture of a book – including whether or not there are any new arguments in it – from reading reviews and excerpts, then you have another think coming.

What is the debate you are talking about?

The debate about the existence of gods – as far as I know, Collins doesn’t have anything new to offer in regards to that question.

Apparently, you think of it as clutter though it was you that brought up Francis Collins.

You are confused. I brought up Collins as an illustration for a poster who didn’t seem to think evolution was a fact in the context of discussing the evolutionary basis of morality (which is relevant to the thread). The purpose of that illustration was to demonstrate that there are indeed Christians who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of species.

But Collins himself – and any views of his outside of acknowledging evolution – is utterly tangential to the thread. To continue to harp on other things Collins believes and other books Collins wrote – in a thread in which the subject is “Moral Behavior,” not “The Books of Francis Collins” – is to go off topic and clutter it up.

To reiterate, the thread is about morality. I explained morality in terms of evolutionary biology. A poster questioned evolutionary biology, and I presented Collins as an example of a Christian who acknowledges it. For you to take one minor example from my post and try to have an elaborate discussion about it is precisely the definition of going off topic and producing “clutter.”

It’s a fruitless endeavor for me to try to explain scientifically your casual reasons. Human , all too human individuals like you, whose vanity leads to expect homage even while they issue specious claims to knowledge.

Again, these sentences don’t make any sense.

 

[Warrenton]

Hi!!!
Very cool thread!

What is the difference between the fact that you dont steal because you have a commandment not to, and I dont steal because it is wrong.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

AntiTheist, everything that you’ve just replied to me implies a biased view. You also wish to dictate to me what “you” believe to be morality. Apparently, I am not allowed by you to determine morality due to the fact you don’t think it could be part of a religous view. Nothing makes sense to you unless it is you dictating to me how I should think. You’re mind actively legislates boundaries . Linguistic articulations of my experience presented lies beyond the power of your conceptual representations. If you can’t understand that then you can’t comprehend the written language.

 

[dskysmine]

AntiTheist, you say that morality is evolutionary based. What does that mean? Evolution made us human alike but many atheists don’t believe in a common morality. What gives?

 

[AntiTheist]

AntiTheist, you say that morality is evolutionary based. What does that mean?

Good question! Allow me to explain.

In the first place, we need to distinguish between descriptive morality and proscriptive morality. Descriptive morality describes how human beings really act in the world – the judgments and choices that they make in situations. Proscriptive morality refers to the various moral systems that tell humans how they should act.

What I’m talking about on this thread is descriptive morality – evolution can (and does) explain why humans generally make the moral choices that they do. For example, it’s almost universally considered “good” to help out another person or to practice honesty when engaging in business with others. Conversly, it’s almost universally considered “bad” to hurt someone for no reason or to lie to others without any regard for the consequences.

Without entering into a consideration of proscriptive morality – the question of whether there really is some kind of moral imperative out there that makes it so that we “should” act in a way that everyone considers “good” – we can study descriptive morality and determine why it is that just about everybody considers those “good” actions I listed above and those “bad” actions I listed above to be so.

And the answer is that humans are social animals – as opposed to solitary animals – and, like all social animals we observe in the wild, humans have developed behavior strategies that will help them maximize their chances of survival.

It’s very simple: our ancestors who were inclined to cooperate tended to stick to together and tended to survive at a greater rate than those of our ancestors who were not inclined to cooperate. As a result, those cooperation-genes got passed down to their descendents. And now here we are with these instincts to cooperate.

As I said, humans aren’t unique in this respect. Go and study other social animals like wolves. Wolf packs have strict codes of behaviors and enforce punishments against members who violate the code. We’ve observed cases where wolves have been exiled from packs as punishment for violating their morality.

So, in other words, evolution has equipped humans with broadly the same set of base values (not wanting to be killed, not wanting to have their stuff stolen, wanting to work together). Together, over time, human societies have gradually come up with other values – values like privacy, individuality, freedom, etc. We didn’t just wake up and pull these values out of a hat, you see…they developed very slowly over time, and they are social constructs that do not originate with any one individual.

So here we are with all these values. Now, as I said earlier in this thread, given a particular set of values, we can rationally determine the action or actions that will most likely promote those values and we can certainly determine the actions that will hinder those values. It’s like in chess: no one’s saying that Knight to Q4 is always and forever a “good” move, but in the context of a specific goal (capture the King!) and given a specific situation, we can judge a move to be better or worse than others.

That’s what’s going on when humans make moral judgments. Whether or not those judgments really map onto some “proscriptive morality” that exists somewhere out there in the universe is unrelated to this process. And if you ask me, there is no proscriptive morality. It’s all completely a human invention, in exactly the way I’ve been describing,

Evolution made us human alike but many atheists don’t believe in a common morality. What gives?

Well, maybe I’ve made my position a little clearer now. Humans all share base values – which is why almost all moral systems agree on the big issues – but individual people can have reasonable differences about whether or not a particular action in a particular case helps or hinders some or all of the values we share in common. This is why moral philosophy is a branch of study.

I think the study of these issues can only be helped by the recognition that morality is a set of cooperative behaviors that ultimately have a biological basis upon which we’ve laid a lot of our developed social values.

 

[John21652]

Good question! Allow me to explain.

Your explanations need tidying up. You are all over the shop. Allow me to explain…

In the first place, we need to distinguish between descriptive morality and proscriptive morality. Descriptive morality describes how human beings really act in the world – the judgments and choices that they make in situations. Proscriptive morality refers to the various moral systems that tell humans how they should act.

Your 'descriptive morality; should be referred to as ‘descriptive ethics’. Ethics is the study of morality. Descriptive ethics is merely empirical and nothing more and does little more than explain ‘what is’. It is more the domain of Anthropologists than Philosophers and is usually taught in a first year Philosophy class to get the students on the right track with terminology. What you are calling ‘proscriptive morality’ should be Prescriptive Ethics. proscriptive ethics focuses on outcomes and suggests the notion of ‘choice’. Proscriptive morality, is rightly a proscribed set of laws which engender prohibition. The Ten Commandments are proscribed moral edicts. The extreme of proscriptive morality, of course, would be those moral edicts engendered in a totalitarian system. However, Prescriptive Ethics would study the choices which emanate from these proscribed laws and would include either/or ethical examinations.

What I’m talking about on this thread is descriptive morality – evolution can (and does) explain why humans generally make the moral choices that they do. For example, it’s almost universally considered “good” to help out another person or to practice honesty when engaging in business with others. Conversly, it’s almost universally considered “bad” to hurt someone for no reason or to lie to others without any regard for the consequences.

Ask yourself this - is nature moral? Or is nature just what it is, a chanceless, random set of outcomes? If you think the latter, then your argument that morality is evolutionary fails. It fails because you have reduced moral choices to being little more than the conditioning of animal behaviour by the environment and there is no real right or wrong and certainly no ‘higher truths’. You are locked into a descriptive view of morality and the notion of free moral agency, of deciding what we “ought” to do, is thrown out.

Without entering into a consideration of proscriptive morality – the question of whether there really is some kind of moral imperative out there that makes it so that we “should” act in a way that everyone considers “good” – we can study descriptive morality and determine why it is that just about everybody considers those “good” actions I listed above and those “bad” actions I listed above to be so.

Sorry, but this paragraph is just plain false. Descriptive eyhics can never and will never expalin ‘why’. It can’t lift itself outside the emprical box it is trapped in. To explain ‘why’, or to suggest ‘ought’, you must leave descriptive ethics and venture into prescriptive ethics. Once you do that, you are negating your firm evolutionary thesis.

And the answer is that humans are social animals – as opposed to solitary animals – and, like all social animals we observe in the wild, humans have developed behavior strategies that will help them maximize their chances of survival.

It’s very simple: our ancestors who were inclined to cooperate tended to stick to together and tended to survive at a greater rate than those of our ancestors who were not inclined to cooperate. As a result, those cooperation-genes got passed down to their descendents. And now here we are with these instincts to cooperate.

Social animals? Are you suggesting cooperation? Altruism? Why ouight one care about others? Why not be super duper independent and take control? It saves worrying about everyone else. Of course, these questions can’t be answered without recourse to prescriptive ethics and that negates the proscribed notion of evolutionary pot luck.

As I said, humans aren’t unique in this respect. Go and study other social animals like wolves. Wolf packs have strict codes of behaviors and enforce punishments against members who violate the code. We’ve observed cases where wolves have been exiled from packs as punishment for violating their morality.

Wolves?!! You mean like a society where the biggest and meanest becomes boss? No thanks. Wolves don’t say “I ought”. They just do wolf stuff!

So, in other words, evolution has equipped humans with broadly the same set of base values (not wanting to be killed, not wanting to have their stuff stolen, wanting to work together). Together, over time, human societies have gradually come up with other values – values like privacy, individuality, freedom, etc. We didn’t just wake up and pull these values out of a hat, you see…they developed very slowly over time, and they are social constructs that do not originate with any one individual.

Hang on a sec…how did something that is an evolutionary outcome end up as a social construct? It aint possible.

So here we are with all these values.

Nature is random. Is it not? After all, even geneticists will explain to you the various ways in which genes can reproduce or mutate and the pertubations by which they can be affected. However, you are now delving into the realms of human choice. Values, after all, vary from person to person, from society to society and nation to nation. Even within a particular society, values vary. How can there be choice when the very nature of evolution is the opposite?

Con.t

 

[John21652]

Cont.d

Now, as I said earlier in this thread, given a particular set of values, we can rationally determine the action or actions that will most likely promote those values and we can certainly determine the actions that will hinder those values. It’s like in chess: no one’s saying that Knight to Q4 is always and forever a “good” move, but in the context of a specific goal (capture the King!) and given a specific situation, we can judge a move to be better or worse than others.

If we can “rationally determine”, as you suggest, then, by definition, evolution does not control us. Here you are appealing to Moral Rationalism, however your suggestion that evolution controls us is an appeal to Maral naturalism. The two don’t fit together.

That’s what’s going on when humans make moral judgments. Whether or not those judgments really map onto some “proscriptive morality” that exists somewhere out there in the universe is unrelated to this process.

Moral judgements don’t pertain to your proscriptive morality. There is no is/ought dichotomy. Proscriptive morals don’t allow for judgements by a moral agent. You abide by the rule and you wont get sanctioned. Simple. The more proscriptive the morality is, the less free choice moral agents have.

And if you ask me, there is no proscriptive morality. It’s all completely a human invention, in exactly the way I’ve been describing,

I reckon the wolves in the pack would beg to differ. Buck the system and you get bitten! So too would the victims of Nazi Germany and the poor souls who lived under Communist rule.

As for is morality a completely human invention? Ethicists have been struggling with that question for thousands of years. That is the goal of Meta-ethics and Normative Ethics. Your tendency to see ‘universals’ is an appeal to objectivity. That suggests that something extrinsic to human decision making exists and is also at odds with your evolutionary based morality theory. However, morality is, by definition, a code of conduct.

Well, maybe I’ve made my position a little clearer now

. Nope.

Humans all share base values

No they don’t.

which is why almost all moral systems agree on the big issues

No they don’t. If they did, there wouldn’t be arguments between consequentialists and deontologists, for example and ther’d be no reason for meta-ethical enquiry.

but individual people can have reasonable differences about whether or not a particular action in a particular case helps or hinders some or all of the values we share in common. This is why moral philosophy is a branch of study.

Now you are suggesting the notion of utility. Utilitarianism allows for free moral agency, basically, provided the moral judgements are based on outcomes. That is at odds with proscriptive moral codes and totally at odds with deontological moral codes. It also would not fit too well in that pack of wolves you mentioned.

I think the study of these issues can only be helped by the recognition that morality is a set of cooperative behaviors

If morality is just that, in other words a set of fixed behaviours, then your notion of universality is negated. Cooperative behaviours vary from society to society and even from species to species.

that ultimately have a biological basis upon which we’ve laid a lot of our developed social values.

There are other behaviours besides moral ones. What about religion? Or etiquette? Or Law? Law is a big one, for it varies and varies and varies and can hardly be biologically based. Moral decision making is about doing the ‘right’ thing in a given set of circumstances. The ‘rightness’ varies from moral code to moral code and requires a degree of rationality, of decision making, or use of the volitional will. Biologically based? Hardly.

 

[dskysmine]

Oh well…
John21652 is probably better equipped for the terminology issues. I actually would have loved to learn Philosophy in college but somehow I didn’t think I could get a job with it. =D

One thing that you mentioned that seems a bit confusing to me is that you talk about morality as instinctive which is often contrary to what we actually see IRL.
Humans tend to be selfish, jealous, and try to control each other in many ways. I think that is instinctive because most animals are precisely like that.

It is funny that you used the wolf example because in all the studies I have seen the wolf that gets shunned by the group is usually a “low level” wolf and never an alpha or beta male, and it is never a female. It is usually because of that male attacking the young or eating out of turn. You can see this as a moral code but it is more like a “might makes right” kind of moral code. I personally find it hard to even call it a moral code because there’s no element of “choice”. The wolf that did the “evil” thing did it because of biological constraints (hungry, or procreation) which removes the notion of moral agent out the window.

Humans are nothing like that… we are not bound by those constraints. Human can literally starve themselves, and many other things that animals can’t. There is no notion of a moral agent when there is no choice or control over biological constraints. Do you understand now how your assertion doesn’t make sense?

What’s worse, you said that human morality has to do with survival, which I may agree partially but it is not a survival at any cost… imagine the case of soldiers that get trapped by the enemy which are tortured to give information. Evolutionary morality would clearly make the soldier “spill his guts” for the torture to end, instead I think it’s pretty standard that all soldiers are expected to die before giving away valuable information about their country.

Fernando Savater uses a great example to explain what makes us moral agents. He mentions the choice by Hector to fight Aquiles (for the human) and soldier ants (for the animals). There is no way you’ll ever see a soldier ant running away from a fight to defend the colony. No way! While Hector, even not considering it, could easily escape a fight he knew was not going to end well.

Best wishes,
Daniel

 

[AntiTheist]

I want to start my post with an important note because both of the replies seem to have missed this point I was making: I am purposefully limiting my discussion to descriptive ethics [thanks for the terminology clarification, John]. The responses have been haunted by the ghost of a prescriptive ethics, containing sentiments like, “Yeah, but is that really moral? Where’s the “higher truth”?”

John says as much here:

Ask yourself this - is nature moral? Or is nature just what it is, a chanceless, random set of outcomes? If you think the latter, then your argument that morality is evolutionary fails. It fails because you have reduced moral choices to being little more than the conditioning of animal behaviour by the environment and there is no real right or wrong and certainly no ‘higher truths’.

The question “Is nature moral?” presupposes that there really is a prescriptive ethics that is true.

In point of fact, there’s no “higher truth” to any of this. Morality is nothing more than a behavior strategy that originated in behaviors for survival.

The reason I cited wolf packs is not that I think they are “moral” in the sense of humans, in the sense of our systems of prescriptive morality. I cited them to demonstrate that social animals develop codes of behavior. Humans obviously have very different codes of behavior, but both kinds of animals are naturally inclined to live in societies and make rules. That’s the point: it is natural and prompted by biology for some creatures to form societies and make rules because it aids survival to do so.

John again confuses the subject by bringing up prescriptive ethics:

Social animals? Are you suggesting cooperation? Altruism? Why ouight one care about others? Why not be super duper independent and take control? It saves worrying about everyone else.

And again, I’m not talking about prescriptive ethics here. I’m not saying that we “should” be anything in particular. I’m looking at the world and noticing that people are cooperative, and I’m looking to explain why. And it just so happens that humans – like other social animals – have developed cooperative societies as a survival strategy. Cooperative behaviors promote survival and, as a result, were hard-wired into people. That is the “why” of it. There’s not some “higher truth,” despite what you might want to believe to flatter your human vanity that we’re somehow more important or better than everything else.

Now that doesn’t mean there won’t be individual variation among the species and some people who have less of a cooperative instinct than others. More on this in a bit.

If we can “rationally determine”, as you suggest, then, by definition, evolution does not control us. Here you are appealing to Moral Rationalism, however your suggestion that evolution controls us is an appeal to Maral naturalism. The two don’t fit together.

They do because using reason to make a choice in a situation is part of a description of how humans make moral decisions. And I’m saying that reason is used to select a course of action that – we think – best fits with the values that have been developed through biology and through our previous uses of reason (social tradition).

Your first sentence is obscure. No one’s suggesting that “evolution controls us” in the sense that we don’t make conscious decisions. And certainly no one’s suggesting that using reason – a faculty which developed naturally in humans – is in any way opposed to evolution and biology.

I wrote: “Humans all share base values”

You responded:

No they don’t.

By “base values,” I mean values like not wanting to be killed, not wanting to have their things stolen, not wanting to live in an environment where these things happen, and similar basic desires.” These form the basis of primitive systems of society, which is why most human societies tend to outlaw murder, theft, etc. In addition to these base values, there are a host of other values that have been developed by societies and individuals over time. The existence of so many different values is part of what makes this a complicated field.

Now look, I have neither the time nor inclination to go through your two posts line-by-line and correct all of your misunderstandings, particularly when you seem to be having such problems drawing a distinction between descriptive and prescriptive ethics, as your “Is nature moral?” question nicely demonstrates.

So if you want to have a discussion, pick two or maybe three points that you want to discuss and explain your position on these points in full, and I will gladly respond.

 

[AntiTheist]

One thing that you mentioned that seems a bit confusing to me is that you talk about morality as instinctive which is often contrary to what we actually see IRL.
Humans tend to be selfish, jealous, and try to control each other in many ways. I think that is instinctive because most animals are precisely like that.

 

[dskysmine]

Ok, I see where the confusion is. I’m not claiming that all people are going to instinctively act in ways that we consider moral all the time – I’m claiming that the basis for our moral behavior – the values that our moral choices promote – is programmed into people naturally.

Of course individuals aren’t all going to act the same because evolution doesn’t produce exact copies – it presents variations on a theme. Some people are going to have a stronger sense of cooperation than others, and there’s going to be the occasional person born without that sense of “right and wrong.”

No one’s claiming that there aren’t conflicting drives and desires in people and in animals: behavior in the real world is messy and rarely straightforward, but the groundwork for the behavior is clearly laid by biology.

I answered all the wolf business at the beginning of my last post, so please read there: it’s important.

You honestly didn’t read the last part of my post, did you?
You can’t call survival behaviour “moral” or “immoral”… animals are not moral agents.
There is no choice for them to reason one or another behaviour. They are ammoral agents. The fact that a wolf being outcast from a group because it did something to compromise the pack doesn’t make it immoral in the pack dynamics, it just makes it forceful to send it away. There is no choice… no reason… no comprehension of “morality”. That’s why you mostly see those banished wolves following the group after they are sent away.

I also find it hard to believe that you call “cooperation” and “not wanting their things stolen” as two basic values when they are obviously contrary. You should really check the documentary “like an ape”. It’s funny enough that you mention that our behaviour is laid out by biology when we are the only animals that can give the other cheek or love our enemies. These are not biological constraints… they are actually contrary to our biology they are derived from pure reasoning.

Again, I’m not claiming that everything we do is simply for survival because humans, with our societies and abstract thinking, have laid a lot of stuff on top of the survival game.

I’ve been claiming that the basis for our choices is biological. A soldier being tortured has to choose whether he wants to simply end the pain he’s experiencing at the cost of feeling like a “traitor” to a group that he values or endure the pain he’s experiencing at the cost of feeling like a “hero” of some kind. This whole idea of loyalty to a group, which is underlying such a situation, is an example of the cooperative instinct operating in a person. Now, different individuals are going to value things differently – some may have a very strong sense of loyalty and some may not. There are a host of behavioral/psychological factors that can influence this as well.

It’s so funny that you mention him feeling like a “hero of some sort”. For an atheist it would make no rational sense to endure such a pain for the sake of others, after all, your existence is the only one you can experience, unless you don’t value your existence, but then again, why would you value anyone else’s?
When I talk about morality I talk almost like I’m talking about mathematics. It doesn’t mean it is something you can touch, but it exists only in a rational agent. The only morality that exists is one based on factual premises: life, knowledge, and universality.
And funny enough, you actually made a breakthrough, you used the word “choice”. That is the most important thing to actually call it morality. If you can’t choose the opposite/differently it is not morality, it would be like saying something unfalsifiable can be science. =) Hurray!

Take care,
Daniel

 

[John21652]

John says as much here: The question “Is nature moral?” presupposes that there really is a prescriptive ethics that is true.

No it doesn’t.

No-one has missed the point you were making. You were rambling between proscriptive morals and prescriptive morals and both should have been ‘ethics’. Anyway, you get that now. The point is, if you are going to ground morality in nature and evolution, you are stuck in an empirical box, as I pointed out in my earlier post.Your empiricism asserts that what you see around you, and you are concentrating on cooperation as a hallmark of hard wired morality, is a morality that evolved because of biological evolution. In other words, it is hard wired. OK, that’s your conclusion based on your decriptive ethical deliberations.

However, your empirical observations should also show that there are many variations on this supposedly hard wired morality. You see cooperative behaviour, yet so many laws are needed to regulate the very opposite of cooperative behaviour. Don’t steal, don’t borrow and not pay back, don’t speed, don’t kill, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum? The question is then why are so many proscriptive moral edicts required to guide moral behaviour if it is hard wired into us? Morality must be consistent, or else it isn’t morality

A question to answer is this; could it not be the case that people enter into cooperative behaviour purely out of rational sef interest?

Moral behaviour involves choice. Proscriptive ethics constrains choice by taking away an agents choices and replacing them with state sanctions and prohibitions. The other course of action is where the human is a moral agent, guided by ethical deliberations which require is/ought deliberations and a pat on the back when good choices are made. It requires use of the volitional will. That is the antithesis of hard wired, evolutionary morality.

In point of fact, there’s no “higher truth” to any of this. Morality is nothing more than a behavior strategy that originated in behaviors for survival.

There are a lot of moral decisions that are made that have nothing whatsoever to do with ‘survival’.

The reason I cited wolf packs is not that I think they are “moral” in the sense of humans, in the sense of our systems of prescriptive morality. I cited them to demonstrate that social animals develop codes of behavior. Humans obviously have very different codes of behavior, but both kinds of animals are naturally inclined to live in societies and make rules. That’s the point: it is natural and prompted by biology for some creatures to form societies and make rules because it aids survival to do so.

Wolves are wolves and can never be anything else. Man, however, can be good or bad; cooperative or selfish’ Wolves are hard wired to be wolves, man is a free moral agent who can choose to be whatever he wishes. Man deliberates, wolves don’t.

John again confuses the subject by bringing up prescriptive ethics: And again, I’m not talking about prescriptive ethics here.

Sorry, but your misuse of the terminology was confusing. As I said, you are just persuing descriptive ethics. However, because of the very obvious exceptions to your hard wired theory, you must then have recourse to prescriptive ethics to explain them. Once you do that, you have negated the hard wired and descriptive ethical model and stepped outside the purely empirical box you built for yourself.

They do because using reason to make a choice in a situation is part of a description of how humans make moral decisions. And I’m saying that reason is used to select a course of action that – we think – best fits with the values that have been developed through biology and through our previous uses of reason (social tradition).

The very notion of reason denotes choice. That is what ‘to reason’ means. Therefore no hard wiring.

Your first sentence is obscure. No one’s suggesting that “evolution controls us” in the sense that we don’t make conscious decisions.

Evolution does not give you any choices. Ask the wolves.

I wrote: “Humans all share base values”

You responded: By “base values,” I mean values like not wanting to be killed,…

Because people don’t want to be killed, or stolen from, is why laws are instituted. That’s because many, many people will kill and steal. Moral values are not hardwired in. As for your notion of primitive societies, you have a very idealised view. Take the Australian Aborigines, some tribes slew trespassers on their land without compunction; fought tooth and nail with their kin; bashed their babies brains out against tree trunks if they had far to travel and wished to lighten the load and so on. Morality?

Now look, I have neither the time nor inclination to go through your two posts line-by-line and correct all of your misunderstandings, particularly when you seem to be having such problems drawing a distinction between descriptive and prescriptive ethics, as your “Is nature moral?” question nicely demonstrates.

It was me who pointed out the difference. “Is nature moral” is a test of your theory. Your view of it is descriptive. Nothing more.

So if you want to have a discussion, pick two or maybe three points that you want to discuss and explain your position on these points in full, and I will gladly respond.If you wish to make philosophical argument, then be prepared to be very pedantic and very semantic. Philosophy depends on it.