Moral Behavior

[AntiTheist]

You honestly didn’t read the last part of my post, did you?

I did. I ignored it because it’s irrelevant.

You can’t call survival behaviour “moral” or “immoral”… animals are not moral agents.

Humans are indeed the only animals that use reason – to the extent that we do – to determine the best course of action, given the values that our nature and nurture have equipped us with.

But the mere fact that we use reason to choose a course of action in no way means anything for this argument. Reason operates on values that have a biological basis and values that have a societal (nurture) basis.

Our behaviors are more complicated than those of other social animals – which we would expect, since we have higher brain functions – but they’re well in line with what we expect to see social animals doing.

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.

There’s nothing contradictory about working together and also having a sense of private property.

we are the only animals that can give the other cheek or love our enemies.

We’re also the only animals that can build racecars. So what? You can’t select some behaviors that differentiate us from other animals and use that to conclude that these behaviors can’t be natural.

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?

Atheists can and do endure pain and die for people and causes all the time. Whether it “makes sense” or not – and in what contexts it might “make sense” – is utterly irrelevant.

 

[AntiTheist]

However, your empirical observations should also show that there are many variations on this supposedly hard wired morality.

Yes, which is exactly what we’d expect to see if moral behaviors were hard wired into people. As I said, evolution doesn’t produce exact copies – it produces variations on themes, so we would expect to see some people with very strong senses of cooperation and some people with very weak senses of cooperation.

As I was saying above, humans have used reason to determine which behaviors are best at promoting values, like having a cooperative society. Hence, the development of a society with rules to keep in line all of those people who don’t have such strongly developed senses of cooperation.

If you wish to make philosophical argument, then be prepared to be very pedantic and very semantic. Philosophy depends on it.

Ok. But I said that I wanted to limit our discussion to two or three points. If you’re not willing to do that, then that’s your choice.

 

[Warrenton]

I 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

 

[dskysmine]

I did. I ignored it because it’s irrelevant.

thank you for the honesty… I could say the same thing about all of your posts…
but I won’t.

Humans are indeed the only animals that use reason – to the extent that we do – to determine the best course of action, given the values that our nature and nurture have equipped us with.

But the mere fact that we use reason to choose a course of action in no way means anything for this argument. Reason operates on values that have a biological basis and values that have a societal (nurture) basis.

Our behaviors are more complicated than those of other social animals – which we would expect, since we have higher brain functions – but they’re well in line with what we expect to see social animals doing.

Reason also operates on completely manufactured values… did you know that?
We are not well in line with what we expect social animals doing. We have many rules that don’t make any sense for animals, and of course they don’t follow them.
The fact that we use reason has everything to do with why we do things… if it didn’t it wouldn’t matter in a court of law if you killed someone because he was getting on your nerves or because you just felt like it.

There’s nothing contradictory about working together and also having a sense of private property.

Tell that to the communists…

We’re also the only animals that can build racecars. So what? You can’t select some behaviors that differentiate us from other animals and use that to conclude that these behaviors can’t be natural.

I’m not saying these behaviours can’t be natural… I’m saying that our behaviours are not comparable to animals’ behaviours. Animals can’t hate, we can. It doesn’t make “hate” outside of morality just because animals can’t do it.
I’m trying to tell you that animals can’t go against their instincts, that’s what makes them amoral.

Atheists can and do endure pain and die for people and causes all the time. Whether it “makes sense” or not – and in what contexts it might “make sense” – is utterly irrelevant.

=) Maybe they are not as atheist as you think

 

[John21652]

Yes, which is exactly what we’d expect to see if moral behaviors were hard wired into people. As I said, evolution doesn’t produce exact copies – it produces variations on themes, so we would expect to see some people with very strong senses of cooperation and some people with very weak senses of cooperation.

Your very own reasoning is proving that reasoning is not hard wired into men’s brains. Your refusal to see that contradictions to your hard wired theory is further proof that your theory is a false one. Moral reasoning is another form of practical reasoning and it is reasoning that involves choices about what to do and when to do it.

As I was saying above, humans have used reason to determine which behaviors are best at promoting values, like having a cooperative society. Hence, the development of a society with rules to keep in line all of those people who don’t have such strongly developed senses of cooperation.

Anyway, your games up. You have been reading up on the subject of “innate moral grammar”, have you not? There is an article in the New York Times, available right here. The article covers Hauser’s book ‘Moral Minds’, in which the author attempts to claim the innate moral grammar for evolution. Even the article explains it is just a thesis and not any proof. Now if you widen your reading out, you will learn that what he has proposed fits in exactly with what Natural Law philosophers have been saying for many, many years. Which is that there is an innate moral aspect to human beings. However, the crtics of Hauser are saying what he is not. Moral deliberations are so variable, so different from society to society, even though those societies have certain moral similarities, that it is rather obvious that the moral grammar is just a ‘bucket’ to be filled with the development of moral reasoning. That is something animals can’t do. There is nothing hard wired into humans except the capacity to reason morally.

Here’s some more info for you. Anthropology has been studying cultures for many years and noting the differences and similarities. That discipline has also noted certain innate characteristics of humans that are universal across cultures and often hidden inside the cultures studied. One of those is the capacity to think morally. The other is the universal notion of spirituality. No one can explain it. Of course, the evolutionists are trying to own that too. Sorry sport. Dead end.

I suggest you go over to Granny’s thread, How does the nitty-gritty of methods and materials of science research contribute to the various theories of [human] evolution? and read from the start. It will bring you up to scratch.

Ok. But I said that I wanted to limit our discussion to two or three points. If you’re not willing to do that, then that’s your choice.

That’s an unimaginative cop out.

 

[AntiTheist]

Hi, Anti.

Howdy.

To revert to the original question, I preferred my answer to Atheistgirl that just states the two moralities she posited are for practical purposes identical. You seem to agree with that?

I’m not sure – I can’t remember that post, and I don’t have the inclination to hunt the thread for this one point. If you could briefly summarize what the “two moralities” are, I could give you an answer.

As to the above quote from your post, I would qualify the assertion that primitive cultures share base values in a couple of ways.

The first qualification is the word “primitive,” for which I would substitute the word “early.”

Ok.

The earliest cultures that we know anything concrete about did not share base values. What they did, I would suggest, is to “legalize” rape, murder and theft, which they went about doing in a plethora of ways. There is no credible evidence that the people liked or didn’t like those negative behaviors; indeed, the legalization or regulation of them indicates they liked them rather too much. It’s bad form to admit it, but killing can be fun, at least for the killer. The killed may or may not like it; they just generally refuse to render an opinion on the subject, for some reason.

You have some examples of societies where murder was both allowed and routinely practiced? If you do, I would question your use of “societies” to describe them.

I don’t doubt that humans lived in a state of nature at one point where might was the only concern, and very early “societies” probably did operate on a very primitive form of cooperation (“Me king of cave people! You bring me food and me no bash you with my club! It is win-win! Arrgggh!”). But as societies developed, with well-defined rules and laws and all the rest, behaviors that were detrimental to a functioning, cooperative society were outlawed. It’s social animal behavior.

Now, humans have higher brain functions, so we’ve developed the capacity to make up other abstract rules on top of these basic rules over time. But none of that changes the fact that what we did in terms of behavior was anything other than natural.

Try, if you will, assuming an original code or morality that is as old as humanity itself. We need not assume where it came from - that would be unfair. Upon this original morality, chance, environment, disease, weakness, death all operate as history unfolds.

We can’t assume this because all moral codes are so different. What we can assume is that all these different moral codes grew up around a core set of values (“Me want to live! Me want to mate! Me want to have me own pile of rocks!”) and the developing power of human reason being applied to these values to determine the best methods for promoting them.

 

[AntiTheist]

Reason also operates on completely manufactured values… did you know that?

Yes. As I just finished saying above, human reason operated on a core set of values to produce some of the basic rules for societies. But as societies developed, different societies started developing different values – some of them quite arbitrary – around which they based new rules.

For example, the Hindus started believing that cows were sacred, and it became immoral to them to harm a cow. Of course, the rule still follows logically from the premises ("It is wrong to cause harm to something human or ‘higher’…cows are divine and therefore higher than humans…therefore…), but one of those premises is “whack,” as the kids say.

Societies making up some values is part and parcel of what comes with being the species of animal that has higher brain functions. It doesn’t mean that we’re “better” than other animals or “special” – we’re just different. Instead of a long neck or fast speed, we got a powerful brain.

We are not well in line with what we expect social animals doing. We have many rules that don’t make any sense for animals, and of course they don’t follow them.

You’re not following. We would expect social animals to make rules to have a society that aids survival. Humans do that (with different rules than different species have, of course). The mere fact that our higher brains have enabled us to make up additional – and often unnecessary – rules doesn’t make us “unnatural” or “not animals” or “not what we expect to see animals doing.” We’re doing precisely what we’d expect animals with higher brain functions to do.

[now, I’m snipping out all of the things I find irrelevant…if you think I’ve missed something important, you can try to explain why it is, but trust me – it isn’t]

I’m trying to tell you that animals can’t go against their instincts, that’s what makes them amoral.

And again, you’re missing the point. Of course other animals can’t go against their instincts and humans, because of their higher brain functions, can resist aspects of their nature in ways that other animals cannot.

And again, that happens to be our special characteristic as animals. Some animals run really fast; other animals have long necks; we have powerful brains.

Other social animals form societies with rules. We too form societies with rules, except that thanks to our big brains, we can make up lots of extra rules and develop new values and have super-duper cool stuff like abstract ideas – like privacy and freedom – that become part of our values.

But that’s it. There’s no “should” in any of this. A great philosopher once said, “Wolves do wolf stuff.” Right on, brother. And humans do human stuff. Part of that “human stuff” is making up abstract rules. But the rules – at least initially – have their basis in our biology.

Maybe [atheists who die for a cause] are not as atheist as you think

Or maybe your really silly assumption that someone has to believe in a god in order to die for a cause is not as correct as you think.

 

[AntiTheist]

Anyway, your games up.

Yours certainly is. When all you have left to offer is the bald assertion that “no one can explain” things that scientists are actively out there figuring out and explaining, you’re done.

In no other field than religion would a sentiment like, “Well, no one can explain it – therefore, it must be a god that done it!” actually go unchallenged.

 

[tonyrey]

Yours certainly is. When all you have left to offer is the bald assertion that “no one can explain” things that scientists are actively out there figuring out and explaining, you’re done.

In no other field than religion would a sentiment like, “Well, no one can explain it – therefore, it must be a god that done it!” actually go unchallenged.

In no other field but philosophy would a purportedly rational belief like “Well, no one can explain it – therefore, it must be matter that did it!” be seriously entertained!

 

[John21652]

In no other field but philosophy would a purportedly rational belief like “Well, no one can explain it – therefore, it must be matter that did it!” be seriously entertained!

Tony, he wont get it!

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, he wont get it!

We shall have to wait and see, John…

 

[dskysmine]

Yes. As I just finished saying above, human reason operated on a core set of values to produce some of the basic rules for societies. But as societies developed, different societies started developing different values – some of them quite arbitrary – around which they based new rules.

For example, the Hindus started believing that cows were sacred, and it became immoral to them to harm a cow. Of course, the rule still follows logically from the premises ("It is wrong to cause harm to something human or ‘higher’…cows are divine and therefore higher than humans…therefore…), but one of those premises is “whack,” as the kids say.

Societies making up some values is part and parcel of what comes with being the species of animal that has higher brain functions. It doesn’t mean that we’re “better” than other animals or “special” – we’re just different. Instead of a long neck or fast speed, we got a powerful brain.

So how do these manufactured values fit into your “evolutionary morality”? If they are manufactured they have nothing to do with evolution, or do you now think evolution includes manufacture?

You’re not following. We would expect social animals to make rules to have a society that aids survival. Humans do that (with different rules than different species have, of course). The mere fact that our higher brains have enabled us to make up additional – and often unnecessary – rules doesn’t make us “unnatural” or “not animals” or “not what we expect to see animals doing.” We’re doing precisely what we’d expect animals with higher brain functions to do.

[now, I’m snipping out all of the things I find irrelevant…if you think I’ve missed something important, you can try to explain why it is, but trust me – it isn’t]

“Make rules” being the operative expression in your argument makes me want to ask if you believe that wolves “make rules”.

And again, you’re missing the point. Of course other animals can’t go against their instincts and humans, because of their higher brain functions, can resist aspects of their nature in ways that other animals cannot.

And again, that happens to be our special characteristic as animals. Some animals run really fast; other animals have long necks; we have powerful brains.

Other social animals form societies with rules. We too form societies with rules, except that thanks to our big brains, we can make up lots of extra rules and develop new values and have super-duper cool stuff like abstract ideas – like privacy and freedom – that become part of our values.

But that’s it. There’s no “should” in any of this. A great philosopher once said, “Wolves do wolf stuff.” Right on, brother. And humans do human stuff. Part of that “human stuff” is making up abstract rules. But the rules – at least initially – have their basis in our biology.

“Other social animals form societies with rules.”? Do they?
I wonder how they teach those rules to one another

Wolves do wolf stuff… perfect… but why does that make wolf stuff “morality”?

Or maybe your really silly assumption that someone has to believe in a god in order to die for a cause is not as correct as you think.

Sure, an atheist can die easily for whatever reason he thinks of, but it doesn’t make the reason very rational with his belief, unless you consider that atheists believe in afterlife…

 

[ausculta]

In no other field but philosophy would a purportedly rational belief like “Well, no one can explain it – therefore, it must be matter that did it!” be seriously entertained!

It was crystals!

Aaarrgghhh!

:tsktsk:

 

[Betterave]

Anti may be wrong, but don’t caricature his view. He isn’t claiming simply “it was matter that did it!” He is saying it was the historical evolution of energy, space, matter, time, and the physical laws governing these that did it. And he’s not wrong about that, nor is he wrong to marvel at the compelling beauty and complexity (and perhaps even truth) of such accounts; he’s just wrong to think that this implies that God didn’t do it, that God is thus rendered superfluous in any fully general account of the cosmos.

 

[dskysmine]

Anti may be wrong, but don’t caricature his view. He isn’t claiming simply “it was matter that did it!” He is saying it was the historical evolution of energy, space, matter, time, and the physical laws governing these that did it. And he’s not wrong about that, nor is he wrong to marvel at the compelling beauty and complexity (and perhaps even truth) of such accounts; he’s just wrong to think that this implies that God didn’t do it, that God is thus rendered superfluous in any fully general account of the cosmos.

I never caricatured his view… I am simply trying to be objective with the facts. We can’t talk about a morality in other animals… but he doesn’t seem to be able to grasp it.

 

[Warrenton]

I’m not sure – I can’t remember that post, and I don’t have the inclination to hunt the thread for this one point. If you could briefly summarize what the “two moralities” are, I could give you an answer.

 

[AntiTheist]

So how do these manufactured values fit into your “evolutionary morality”?

We evolved the capacity to reason. We use our reason to manufacture values. We come up with rules that promote these values and see if we like the results for society. Rinse and repeat.

Nothing is unnatural about any of this.

“Make rules” being the operative expression in your argument makes me want to ask if you believe that wolves “make rules”.

Not in the same way as animals who have higher brain functions do, no. But they still have a society that we can describe as functioning along the lines of codes of behavior. We might reasonably assume that if they had higher brain functions, and the accompanying ability to communicate abstractly, they would explicitly enshrine these behaviors as rules.

Wolves do wolf stuff… perfect… but why does that make wolf stuff “morality”?

I didn’t say that what they do is “morality.” They do their social animal thing. We do our social animal thing. Our social animal thing is more complicated – thanks, again, to the more powerful brains that evolution has equipped us with – and we call our social animal thing “morality” in order to contrast it to the social animal things done by other social animals.

If they had the same higher brain functions as we do, perhaps they’d make up more complicated rules and start calling their wolf stuff “morality.”

Sure, an atheist can die easily for whatever reason he thinks of, but it doesn’t make the reason very rational with his belief, unless you consider that atheists believe in afterlife…

There’s nothing necessarily irrational about dying for a cause that you believe strongly in, especially if you think that your death will somehow benefit the cause.

 

[AntiTheist]

In brief, the OP said her morality is the same as Christian morality, minus God, and asked if that one difference made her morality worse. I said no, her morality is, for all practical purposes, the same as Christian morality.

Well, if it’s exactly the same as Christian morality minus the god belief, then sure, it’s exactly the same minus the god belief. That seems self-evident.

Sure, I suggest that what we call “law” is in actuality the regulation of crime. When the king of Egypt arrogated to himself the right to start wars and dispense punishment to the people, what he was really doing was securing a monopoly for murder to himself. Likewise with the custom of taking wives: this was nothing more than formalized rape. Taxation is formalized theft.

No, wars aren’t the same as murder, taxation isn’t the same as theft, and marriage isn’t the same as rape.

When I say that all societies prohibited murder, I mean that within the society citizens were not allowed to kill each other – I’m not talking about whether or not they would agree to collectively take aggressive action against other societies, when deemed appropriate by the leaders of their society.

If this is correct, it seems to me that everything we do is equally natural, now as then?

Yep. Humans do human stuff. The fact that our stuff is more complicated doesn’t make it any less natural or any less social animal stuff.

 

[Warrenton]

No, wars aren’t the same as murder, taxation isn’t the same as theft, and marriage isn’t the same as rape.

When I say that all societies prohibited murder, I mean that within the society citizens were not allowed to kill each other – I’m not talking about whether or not they would agree to collectively take aggressive action against other societies, when deemed appropriate by the leaders of their society.

Of course I understand your position here. But I deny that war is essentially different than murder or taxation theft, in part because I find the social contract theory facile in the extreme. But I think we can let this go by the boards.

The main point this position of mine raises is “why then do we draw a distinction between murder and war?” To which I reply, “to assuage conscience.” Conscience is a learned behavior (although we probably differ as to who taught us the behavior originally). But if you believe, at least, that our ancestors believed in their gods at the time they formulated the basic laws we live by still, we arrive at the same place, I think.

In the absence of any belief, or better still, in the conviction of non-belief, people stand at the point where they can simplify their emotional life considerably, simply by doing away with conscience. They reconcile their behavior henceforth on a rational cost-benefit analysis, and so do the rulers.

Toward what direction this tends over time would be interesting to see.

 

[tonyrey]

It was crystals!

Aaarrgghhh!

:tsktsk:

Materialists accuse theists of being superstitious but they fail to realise they are attributing magical power to inanimate matter in its alleged capacity to produce conscious, rational, purposeful beings!