Atheism, Gnosticism & the Problem of Evil

[Seax]

Harsh, lol.  Threads like these could help us to more clearly and accurately communicate our moral positions, and better understand other moral positions.

For example, we've learned that Seax doesn't actually believe that naturally advantageous things -are- the set of morally good things - rather the other way around.  Goods things can be naturally advantageous.  That this explains some portion of our moral development and positions on good which can be ascribed to the effect of selection.  

However, assuming that morally good things can be naturally advantageous - and that societies and breeding populations will privilege and police the boundary of that advantage.... as they see it, we've multiplied the original problem, not resolved it.  Now we have to contend with moral relativism and subjectivism, as well, at least descriptively.

The criteria of benefit, as employed in defense of volcanoes, may not help us here - as we can conceive of some benefit to any item of moral import deemed good or bad by any criteria (and just about everything not of moral import, too - we're endlessly creative at finding a use for things).

One killing benefits, another does not.... whether that's the individual, a breeding population, or society.  Is there a moral difference between these two killings, and if so, what?

A broader version of the same question might be - suppose that one breeding population or society determined, accurately, that it would be beneficial to them to eradicate the other?  If we contend that this would be bad in some sense that other breeding populations or societies would strike us down - then it seems to be the case that failing to eradicate the other society is the bad making property?  If they rise up and beat you down that just goes to show that misdeeds are punished.....but if you secure the benefits and prevent any hope of reprisal, then a Very Good Deed has been accomplished.  Carthago delenda est.

[The Grand Nudger]

I just wrote up a great response, then clicked something wrong & lost it. 😭😭😭 I'll try & rewrite it as best I can, but I'm rather crestfallen so this probably won't be as good a response as it ought to be. I'll just briefly restate the points I made in the original.

It happens, still alot to unpack below.

There is the natural order of nature, a natural morality, if you like, and then there is our human morality. I reject the so-called 'naturalistic fallacy' argument because our morality is an evolved trait, a product of what is. Our morality is subordinate to, and a product of nature. It serves a natural purpose.

Serving a natural purpose (or any purpose) has nothing to do with the naturalistic (or moralistic) fallacies. 

It's the suggestion that a thing being natural might not be interchangeable with it being good, or that a thing being deemed good may not make that thing natural.  That with respect to these two sets - the good and the natural, if we made a venn diagram - there may be overlap, yes, but also content which would not fall within their confluence.

Is this something that you actually reject?  

When I say that volcanos are not immoral I mean that they serve a natural purpose, and that is is foolish to try and apply human morality to the nonhuman.

I think that most people here would agree with your conclusion even if they found your stated rationalizations insufficient or irrelevant.

This also means that we cannot necessarily apply things that might serve nature's end on the grand scale within a smaller microcosm; like survival of the fittest. Darwinian struggle is a natural and good thing, because it serves nature's purpose; God's purpose. But trying to apply it to human society by eliminating all safety & labour regulations destroying all social safety nets so only the strong survive would be a mistake, as humans are a social species that maximises fitness through coöperation and social cohesion. It would be pathological, maladaptive, immoral and would not serve nature's purpose.

Natural is good, unless it's big and grand, big good is bad, and therefore unnatural.  IDK...I think you may be confused. Here again you take a circuitous route to an unremarkable conclusion.

[Angrboda]

When you reach the position that man is a naturally evolved machine, the division between the acts of a volcano and the acts of a man start to break down.

[The Grand Nudger]

In a general sense, sure. There still seems to be some difference, however, which would suggest that a man killing 100k people and a volcano killing 100k people aren't the same thing with respect to our moral intuitions.

[Angrboda]

Intuitions also tell us that animals have no moral sense. Intuition, at bottom, is not a guide to reality but simply another product of a machine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe, but I'm not that concerned with the status of our intuitions in that comment (and used intuitions precisely to afford room for any position on that matter). I'm noticing that there are things we observe about men, and things we observe about volcanos, that lead us to believe that there might be a difference despite identical bodycounts.

[Angrboda]

A difference you need to state.

[The Grand Nudger]

More accurately, a person noting those differences that would matter to whatever position on morality they hold, would need to state them. It's not like we're going to run out of differences between men and volcanos to reference. Nor man-as-machine and volcanos. We won't even run out of differences comparing one machine to another, or one living machine to another, or one living human machine to another - full on apples to apples.

[Seax]

Serving a natural purpose (or any purpose) has nothing to do with the naturalistic (or moralistic) fallacies. 

It's the suggestion that a thing being natural might not be interchangeable with it being good, or that a thing being deemed good may not make that thing natural.  That with respect to these two sets - the good and the natural, if we made a venn diagram - there may be overlap, yes, but also content which would not fall within their confluence.

Is this something that you actually reject?  

That is the more conservative interpretation, but many take it to mean that we cannot derive morality from nature. I disagree with this on the grounds that morality is an evolved instinct and therefore a product of nature to begin with. I agree that we cannot take everything that is natural to be moral, but I don't know that anyone actually believes that. It would also be selfdefeating, because compassion & cruelty, life & death, extinction & survival, prosperity & catastrophe are all part of nature, so you need some other guide to tell you which of these things are moral & which aren't.

This also means that we cannot necessarily apply things that might serve nature's end on the grand scale within a smaller microcosm; like survival of the fittest. Darwinian struggle is a natural and good thing, because it serves nature's purpose; God's purpose. But trying to apply it to human society by eliminating all safety & labour regulations destroying all social safety nets so only the strong survive would be a mistake, as humans are a social species that maximises fitness through coöperation and social cohesion. It would be pathological, maladaptive, immoral and would not serve nature's purpose.

Natural is good, unless it's big and grand, big good is bad, and therefore unnatural.  IDK...I think you may be confused.  Here again you take a circuitous route to an unremarkable conclusion.

That's not what I meant. I mean that we cannot apply general principles of nature, like only the strongest survive, on a smaller scale because different species have evolved different survival strategies. The human strategy is a cooperative, social one.

As for unremarkable, I'm not trying to be novel. What I'm talking about ought to be unremarkable, because it is the purpose for which our moral instincts evolved.

[The Grand Nudger]

That is the more conservative interpretation, but many take it to mean that we cannot derive morality from nature. I disagree with this on the grounds that morality is an evolved instinct and therefore a product of nature to begin with. I agree that we cannot take everything that is natural to be moral, but I don't know that anyone actually believes that. It would also be selfdefeating, because compassion & cruelty, life & death, extinction & survival, prosperity & catastrophe are all part of nature, so you need some other guide to tell you which of these things are moral & which aren't.

That's probably not a good reason to disagree with the thing that the naturalistic and moralistic fallacies don't say.  Even if we grant that our moral sense and moral agency are evolved traits - that won't make morality an evolved trait or natural product anymore than our sense of touch being an evolved trait makes a chair an evolved trait or a natural product.  

That's not what I meant. I mean that we cannot apply general principles of nature, like only the strongest survive, on a smaller scale because different species have evolved different survival strategies.

Naturalistic fallacy.

The human strategy is a cooperative, social one.

Moralistic fallacy.