What is GOOD?

[genkaus]

Empathy and reason are the means to a achieve a desired end, not the end in themselves.Within the naturalist paradigm both empathy and reason are happy by-products of an indifferent evolutionary process. Human reason serves as a fancy set of claws and fangs. Empathy perhaps a type of protective herd behaviour. They're about survival nothing more, nothing less. Reason and empathy are morally neutral means of survival. They do not conform to any higher moral standard.

What is actually being said here is that empathy and/or reason dictate a moral standard - not conform to one. Further, it'd be foolish to assume a higher moral standard without first establishing a standard moral standard to be higher from.

Within naturalism that is...And if naturalism is your assumption then it is inconsistent to say that either empathy or reason allow us to rise above our animal nature. Rise above? To what?

To human nature. The most significant and defining distinction between humans and other animals is our extraordinary capacity to use reason to such an extent. That is what separates us from animals - the capacity to reflect upon our intentions, our goals and our actions. If, as you say, survival is what matters to a living entity, then the boost given by that capacity to reason is enormous and therefore it would be considered above other animals.

Either the answer is within naturalism, which it isn't since all that matters is survival, or they, empathy and reason, converge on a specific end, which implies that evolution is teleological, something excluded from the neo-Darwinist paradigm.

The mistake here would be thinking that if anything is teleological then there must be an intelligence behind it. Simply put, it'd be a matter of the angle you are looking at it from. For example, if you see a tree as a system then everything in it does perform a specific function towards specific goals. In that sense, there is a specific purpose behind each sub-system. But to assume that this implies a specific intelligence within each system or even a central intelligence would be incorrect.

The question, I think, we must ask ourselves is this. What is the ultimate goal? What is the good that we hope to attain by applying reason and listening to empathy. And what is it that makes it good? Apart from the means, empathy and reason, what is the desired end?

The ultimate goal - if anything can be referred to as such - would be determined by the defining trait or set of traits of humanity. While it is not firmly established what these might be, some indications are given by psychological research into the subject, such as Manfred Max-Neef model of Fundamental Human Needs or Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

The distinction between humans and other animals becomes even more pronounced given the study of these facets of humanity. The animal needs usually stop at the basic physiological and safety level, while human needs go way beyond that - indicating the qualitative difference between basic survival and a life fully lived. And while it is not established, these are the needs you'd expect of a rational biological entity. Further, these traits would be such a basic and objective aspect of human nature that it would be incorrect to reduce them to simple desires or subjective wants.

It'd also be incorrect to regard these as good or bad. The primary choice of whether or not to act according to those traits (or work towards the goals) would be amoral. But, given that they are part of your nature, that would be an irrational choice.

---

I'm much more concerned that we live up to what is best in our animal nature than that we rise 'above' it. Excessive rationalization can disorientate us from our very natural better lights.

And how do you determine what is best or better part of your animal nature without the use of reason? The little bird again?

Must it explain our actual behavior, our feelings about that behavior or what our behavior should be explained only by its alignment with some absolute standard.

Not necessarily absolute, but there is a need for an objective and justifiable standard. Otherwise you acting on the feelings of your empathy is no more moral than a rapist acting on the feelings of lust or hate.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The primary choice of whether or not to act according to those traits (or work towards the goals) would be amoral. But, given that they are part of your nature, that would be an irrational choice.

Sounds like this conclusion conflicts with any form of morality based on reason. You're just acting on a biological imperative that in itself is amoral. From a biological point of view, reason is only a tool of survival. Therefore the naturalist appeal to reason is just another form of 'might makes right', one that secures the 'qualitative' by-products which in themselves have no survival value.

[genkaus]

Sounds like this conclusion conflicts with any form of morality based on reason. You're just acting on a biological imperative that in itself is amoral. From a biological point of view, reason is only a tool of survival. Therefore the naturalist appeal to reason is just another form of 'might makes right', one that secures the 'qualitative' by-products which in themselves have no survival value.

Except, I'm not talking about acting on a biological imperative, I'm talking about a rational one. In my argument, I made a clear distinction between simple survival and life and the things you refer to as 'qualitative' by-products of biology are crucial to that distinction.

You keep talking about seeing things from a biological perspective - as if all naturalist philosophies reduce to biology - but that has never been my position. I can recognize the fact that our capacity to reason developed - or was opted for by natural selection - biologically as a result of the enormous survival advantage it confers and yet not be limited to that perspective. When it comes to morality, there is not reason why I should consider human biological make-up to be the only standard or survival to be the only value and thus no reason to limit myself to your understanding of naturalist perspective. In fact, if you look into the potential human traits I mentioned, you'd find that only a few of them pertain to biological or physiological needs while the rest are psychological in nature.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Just another atheist's perspective to add to the mix.

[genkaus]

Just another atheist's perspective to add to the mix.

That's beneath you.

As you know, I don't share Dawkins' perspective on our values being purely informed by our evolutionary past. But even if that was the case, I still wouldn't consider this to be a valid perspective. As a matter of fact, I do not consider the perspective presented here to accurately represent the view of that particular atheist either.

The implicit assumption here is that the products of evolution - whether it be having five fingers or having a particular value - are all equally random and arbitrary and this is disguised by using comparative statements. I do not believe that to represent Dawkins' actual perspective on evolution or evolutionary morality simply because he failed contest the point in a hurried interview.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's beneath you.

You misunderstand. I wasn't directly responding to your generally Objectivist position. I just thought I'd throw it into the mix of the general discussion for any one to comment upon.