(December 2, 2014 at 12:17 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(November 28, 2014 at 1:27 pm)vincent150 Wrote: I agree we are the way we are because we evolved as social creatures but now we are intelligent enough to realise that why do we not go back to every man himself.

Because that would be stupid, as you've conceded elsewhere when you acknowledged that a society where we don't do that is better than one where we do. Broken individuals may not have sufficiently developed moral sentiments of fairness and reciprocity, senses of guilt and shame, or sufficient empathy to refrain from preying on their fellow humans; but the majority do.

I believe he's asking a higher level question. Where does the moral dimension of moral questions come from in an atheist world? I may choose to eat that extra slice of pie, and I shouldn't because I don't like the consequences of eating it, but consequences alone don't make the should of not eating a piece of pie into a moral 'should'. No matter the consequences of eating that piece of pie, it doesn't become a matter for morals. Now if I choose to steal something, that shouldn't has a moral dimension that eating the pie does not, even though I may suffer just as much from both. The question I think he's asking is where does this 'moral dimension' come from?

I think the moral dimension is a human abstraction, an overlay created to explain socio-genetic proclivities. Humans crave explanations and seek patterns even where they don't exist. I don't think the field of morailty is exempt from that drive, myself.

For those of you that refer to evolution as the basis for morality, do you realize that doing so reintroduces teleology into the process? If evolution leaves us with a human nature and acting contrary to it is not in the best interest of humanity, then “best interest” introduces intentionality, or desired ends, into the evolutionary process, at least where humans are concerned. That’s not a problem for believers but it is for those who think evolution is a wholly undirected process.

There is a second problem with evolution based morality. It cannot adjudicate between conflicts between communities and individuals. The reproductive advantage of one can easily become the liability of the other.

(December 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: For those of you that refer to evolution as the basis for morality, do you realize that doing so reintroduces teleology into the process? If evolution leaves us with a human nature and acting contrary to it is not in the best interest of humanity, then “best interest” introduces intentionality, or desired ends, into the evolutionary process, at least where humans are concerned. That’s not a problem for believers but it is for those who think evolution is a wholly undirected process.

You're breaking it down again to humans, which I don't. We are a social species, nothing more, nothing less. So this thing we call morality has evolved. As I say whenever this comes up, there are codes of conduct as well as empathy with other species as well. At least with the ones living in social groups. It's in the best interest of the group for it's members to work together.

You should look at some of the social experiments conducted with animals on that matter. From the top of my head it's at least the great apes, elephants and dogs working together and posessing codes of conduct.

(December 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: For those of you that refer to evolution as the basis for morality, do you realize that doing so reintroduces teleology into the process? If evolution leaves us with a human nature and acting contrary to it is not in the best interest of humanity, then “best interest” introduces intentionality, or desired ends, into the evolutionary process, at least where humans are concerned. That’s not a problem for believers but it is for those who think evolution is a wholly undirected process.

There is a second problem with evolution based morality. It cannot adjudicate between conflicts between communities and individuals. The reproductive advantage of one can easily become the liability of the other.

B-b-but Chad, evolution is not bound by human morals. And certainly not by religion. You should stop for a moment and stand up, feeling your weight on your feet.

(December 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm)LastPoet Wrote: B-b-but Chad, evolution is not bound by human morals.

Sure it is. Once you have rational beings capable of acting contrary to evolved instincts then morality has already started to play a role in how that species evolves. Mankind has now reached the point where we can effectively shape the direction of our own evolution by eugenics, genetic manipulation, selective abortion, etc. In so doing, people must make moral choices based on something other than their evolutionary history.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 3:41 pm)LastPoet Wrote: B-b-but Chad, evolution is not bound by human morals.

Sure it is. Once you have rational beings capable of acting contrary to evolved instincts then morality has already started to play a role in how that species evolves. Mankind has now reached the point where we can effectively shape the direction of our own evolution by eugenics, genetic manipulation, selective abortion, etc. In so doing, people must make moral choices based on something other than their evolutionary history.

The assumption here being that intellects aren't equally influenced by evolutionary development as any other process that allows a particular organism to thrive or fail in its environment.

(December 2, 2014 at 1:13 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 12:17 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Because that would be stupid, as you've conceded elsewhere when you acknowledged that a society where we don't do that is better than one where we do. Broken individuals may not have sufficiently developed moral sentiments of fairness and reciprocity, senses of guilt and shame, or sufficient empathy to refrain from preying on their fellow humans; but the majority do.

I believe he's asking a higher level question. Where does the moral dimension of moral questions come from in an atheist world? I may choose to eat that extra slice of pie, and I shouldn't because I don't like the consequences of eating it, but consequences alone don't make the should of not eating a piece of pie into a moral 'should'. No matter the consequences of eating that piece of pie, it doesn't become a matter for morals. Now if I choose to steal something, that shouldn't has a moral dimension that eating the pie does not, even though I may suffer just as much from both. The question I think he's asking is where does this 'moral dimension' come from?

I'm willing to entertain that. However, this:

'I agree we are the way we are because we evolved as social creatures, but now we are intelligent enough to realise that, why do we not go back to every man himself?'

Sounds like: 'Now that we know our moral sentiments are evolved, why should we follow them?'

That we're better off (happier and safer) if we don't ignore our moral intuitions answers that question. To a reasonable extent, so does 'What do our moral sentiments being evolved have to do with whether we should or shouldn't follow them?'.

As far as 'higher level' answers to that question, I don't see how it's reasonable to expect us to have a definitive answer that still eludes moral philosophers. At some point, an axiom has to be invoked, otherwise it's 'why?' all the way down.

(December 2, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(December 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Sure it is. Once you have rational beings capable of acting contrary to evolved instincts then morality has already started to play a role in how that species evolves. Mankind has now reached the point where we can effectively shape the direction of our own evolution by eugenics, genetic manipulation, selective abortion, etc. In so doing, people must make moral choices based on something other than their evolutionary history.

The assumption here being that intellects aren't equally influenced by evolutionary development as any other process that allows a particular organism to thrive or fail in its environment.

So what are you saying, that reason is not reliable because it evolved. If so how is it possible to know anything at all?

(December 2, 2014 at 5:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So what are you saying, that reason is not reliable because it evolved. If so how is it possible to know anything at all?

Reason changed over time. And people could know what was known at their time. What was reasonable in the Middle Ages isn't necessarily reasonable in this present day and age.

We can know what our times provide. And if we educate ourselves, we can push that knowledge further.