Morality, ethics and atheism

Holy Crap!
Post Reply
User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by pErvinalia » Thu May 05, 2022 11:46 pm

rasetsu wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:24 pm
But how can that be, given that the assumption behind the evolutionary framework is that we should follow our evolution, and moral intuitions are no less evolved than any other behavior.
Should? That's not what L'Emmy and Jim are saying. Is isn't ought.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Fri May 06, 2022 1:45 am

I'm not looking for a full-blown system of morality to emerge from evolutionary theory. Developing that is a social and political project.

All I'm saying is that somewhere in the starting point of thinking about morality are emotions, particularly those involved in how we relate and feel about our fellow human beings. Those emotions, I assert, have a source in our evolutionary history, at least as tendencies to feel and act in particular circumstances. Harnessing the more positive of such emotions gives you a handle on empathy and compassion. I cannot imagine a system of morality that does not connect in some way to treating other people well, in a way which is more than a cold intellectual process.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 20981
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by laklak » Fri May 06, 2022 1:50 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 7:57 am
Yeah it would be hard to imagine that the level of cooperation needed for scientific endeavour would be present in selfish species like the American libertarian, for example.
We get collectivists to do that for us. We just tell them it's for the Greater Good. They're suckers for that line.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Fri May 06, 2022 1:52 am

:lol:
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri May 06, 2022 7:35 am

"The greater good ..."
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri May 06, 2022 8:29 am

JimC wrote:I'm not looking for a full-blown system of morality to emerge from evolutionary theory. Developing that is a social and political project.

All I'm saying is that somewhere in the starting point of thinking about morality are emotions, particularly those involved in how we relate and feel about our fellow human beings. Those emotions, I assert, have a source in our evolutionary history, at least as tendencies to feel and act in particular circumstances. Harnessing the more positive of such emotions gives you a handle on empathy and compassion. I cannot imagine a system of morality that does not connect in some way to treating other people well, in a way which is more than a cold intellectual process.
What we can say about the good in relation to the evolutionary history of emotion we can also say about the bad. If we are to naturalise emotion and say feelings like empathy, sympathy, compassion and kindness have a certain evolved personal/social utility, then we can also say the same about feelings like dislike, jealousy, anger and hatred. We can also think of examples where hatred, for example, is toured as a natural good or justified on religious grounds.

The religious outlook however takes a different perspective. The good is claimed as an expression of the divine, where the bad is the result of sin, evil: the rejection of the divine, or the work of demons etc.

If we are to forward an account of morals and ethics as being rooted in our evolutionary history do we not have to give a more detailed account of emotion first?

I'm not challenging that by the way. Our emotional capacities and responses are as evolved as our cognition, our hearing, the ability to forward-plan or climb stairs with a cup of tea in both hands. What I'm challenging is the impulse to justify a god-free moral/ethical outlook in relation to religious perspectives when we can just make a direct appeal to values, actions, and consequences.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by rasetsu » Fri May 06, 2022 11:59 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 11:46 pm
rasetsu wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:24 pm
But how can that be, given that the assumption behind the evolutionary framework is that we should follow our evolution, and moral intuitions are no less evolved than any other behavior.
Should? That's not what L'Emmy and Jim are saying. Is isn't ought.
If it's an explanation of morality, as L'Emmy says it is, then it's about oughts, no matter how much he/she says it isn't because that's what morality is. Anything else is just undifferentiated evolutionary behavior.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by rasetsu » Fri May 06, 2022 12:08 pm

JimC wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 1:45 am
I'm not looking for a full-blown system of morality to emerge from evolutionary theory. Developing that is a social and political project.

All I'm saying is that somewhere in the starting point of thinking about morality are emotions, particularly those involved in how we relate and feel about our fellow human beings. Those emotions, I assert, have a source in our evolutionary history, at least as tendencies to feel and act in particular circumstances. Harnessing the more positive of such emotions gives you a handle on empathy and compassion. I cannot imagine a system of morality that does not connect in some way to treating other people well, in a way which is more than a cold intellectual process.
I'm not asking for a complete system but rather posing some very basic questions which you are either unwilling or unable to answer. Demonstrating that your idea is coherent (consistency) isn't demanding a full-blown system. That you aren't even able to make even an attempt to show that your idea is coherent makes it clear that you have some vague feelings and little else. And you've twice committed the fallacy of the stolen concept by suggesting that you'd pick the "positive" or good behaviors out of the panoply of evolved behaviors. That shows clearly that you're drawing your morals and definition of the good from outside evolution while at the same time suggesting that the good should be sourced in evolution. You can't have it both ways. And if I were a theist I'd make the same observation I am now in being skeptical of the idea that you can source morals in evolution. You've claimed that this is a good response to theists' claim that atheists have no source for their morals. All you've shown is that they're right, at least in your case.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Hermit » Fri May 06, 2022 12:55 pm

rasetsu wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 11:59 am
pErvinalia wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 11:46 pm
rasetsu wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:24 pm
But how can that be, given that the assumption behind the evolutionary framework is that we should follow our evolution, and moral intuitions are no less evolved than any other behavior.
Should? That's not what L'Emmy and Jim are saying. Is isn't ought.
If it's an explanation of morality, as L'Emmy says it is, then it's about oughts, no matter how much he/she says it isn't because that's what morality is. Anything else is just undifferentiated evolutionary behavior.
:this:
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri May 06, 2022 4:12 pm

rasetsu wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 11:59 am
pErvinalia wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 11:46 pm
rasetsu wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:24 pm
But how can that be, given that the assumption behind the evolutionary framework is that we should follow our evolution, and moral intuitions are no less evolved than any other behavior.
Should? That's not what L'Emmy and Jim are saying. Is isn't ought.
If it's an explanation of morality, as L'Emmy says it is, then it's about oughts, no matter how much he/she says it isn't because that's what morality is. Anything else is just undifferentiated evolutionary behavior.
I don't see it as an explanation of morality. Rather it is a hypothesis regarding how human morality arose in the first place. Morality is an aspect of human culture. If it is not something handed down to our species by a deity, it must have some other origin. Maybe you can unpack the concept of 'undifferentiated evolutionary behavior.'

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Fri May 06, 2022 9:28 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 8:29 am
I'm not challenging that by the way. Our emotional capacities and responses are as evolved as our cognition, our hearing, the ability to forward-plan or climb stairs with a cup of tea in both hands. What I'm challenging is the impulse to justify a god-free moral/ethical outlook in relation to religious perspectives when we can just make a direct appeal to values, actions, and consequences.
I don't see what I am trying to discuss as justifying, or naturalising any particular evolved feature as some sort of "ought" or a locked-in moral imperative. I see two things emerging from a greater understanding of the effects of our evolutionary past.

One is simple. Whatever philosophy of morals and ethics people wish to develop should be informed by a clear-eyed understanding of the tendencies (frequently involving emotions) that our past has imbued us all with. The old social science view of humans as blank slates at birth, and that all that matters is our socialisation is simply wrong, as is religious-based view of us as created beings. If you want to build a system of morality, which essentially is how people should treat each other, then an understanding of our evolved nature will provide a more realistic starting point.

The second relates to your mention of values. I would say that most attempts at developing morality would put a high value on the principle of treating others with compassion, empathy and respect. If our evolutionary history has produced a tendency to feel such emotions, and display such behaviours to others (at least within our in-group, but that can be enlarged over time), then we have a useful tool. Purely rational models of human behaviour might describe how treating others well is a good thing in a purely intellectual sense. Fine, but not a real reflection of how people work (economic models predicated on a purely rational agent have faltered badly...).

I'm also well aware of the negative aspects of our evolved nature, again frequently emerging as emotional tendencies. (I emphasise that they are only tendencies, averaged out, and that culture, conditioning and individual choices can and do control and limit them). Such things as distrust of out-groups, jealousy, aggression etc. are clearly parts of ourselves that could work against any system of ethics and morality we might develop. Understanding something of their nature would make our attempts to develop morality on a non-religious basis more realistic.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by Hermit » Sat May 07, 2022 3:28 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 4:12 pm
Morality is an aspect of human culture. If it is not something handed down to our species by a deity, it must have some other origin.
That - human culture - is the origin of morality. Attempts to show that moral precepts have emanated from evolved nature are nonsensical. There are just too many - often contradictory ones - in location and time. They are social.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Sat May 07, 2022 7:30 am

Hermit wrote:
Sat May 07, 2022 3:28 am
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 4:12 pm
Morality is an aspect of human culture. If it is not something handed down to our species by a deity, it must have some other origin.
That - human culture - is the origin of morality. Attempts to show that moral precepts have emanated from evolved nature are nonsensical. There are just too many - often contradictory ones - in location and time. They are social.
I am not claiming that any moral precepts per se emanate from evolved nature. Rather the claim is that our evolved nature as a social species with a relatively powerful intellect has not only necessitated the development of moral systems, but has also instilled certain tendencies in the species which serve as seeds for those moral systems. Contradictory moral precepts are irrelevant to this claim.

In the discussion from which the quote was taken, the theist cites chimpanzee behavior--referred to obliquely in the response to the theist. The theist was presenting this article as a basis for discussion (the article was originally published at least a few years before the date shown at the link). The article isn't particularly convincing for a number of reasons, but I would suggest the 'proto-morality' exhibited by chimpanzees is an indication that human morality (in all its variety) is a manifestation of our evolved nature--it goes deeper than culture.

User avatar
rasetsu
Ne'er-do-well
Posts: 4994
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:04 pm
About me: Move along. Nothing to see here.
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by rasetsu » Sat May 07, 2022 12:14 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 4:12 pm
rasetsu wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 11:59 am
pErvinalia wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 11:46 pm
rasetsu wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:24 pm
But how can that be, given that the assumption behind the evolutionary framework is that we should follow our evolution, and moral intuitions are no less evolved than any other behavior.
Should? That's not what L'Emmy and Jim are saying. Is isn't ought.
If it's an explanation of morality, as L'Emmy says it is, then it's about oughts, no matter how much he/she says it isn't because that's what morality is. Anything else is just undifferentiated evolutionary behavior.
I don't see it as an explanation of morality. Rather it is a hypothesis regarding how human morality arose in the first place. Morality is an aspect of human culture. If it is not something handed down to our species by a deity, it must have some other origin. Maybe you can unpack the concept of 'undifferentiated evolutionary behavior.'
Sure, and this answer will be an apt comment on jim's theory as well. There are two sense of the word 'good'. There is the moral sense, in which we refer to something as morally good. And there is the sense of good meaning that something possesses instrumental utility, that it is good for something or other. Both your theory and jim's postulate that something is good for the flourishing of the species. In your case it's our moral intuition. In jim's case, it is evolved inclinations towards altruism and cooperation. If our moral intuitions are good in the sense of being instrumentally useful rather than morally good, it's not clear that they have any utility in picking out moral truths. If our intuition is geared toward benefitting our flourishing, it's not necessarily geared toward being good for identifying objectively true moral statements. It's not even clear that there are moral truths on such a view, and seems to suggest an error theory, that our moral intuitions seem to apprehend the truth or falsity of moral statements when in fact moral statements have no truth value at all; they are simply errors. In that sense, it seems that your explanation of morals leaves the behaviors picked out by our moral intuition, such as altruism, as undifferentiated from the behaviors which our moral intuition does not, such as eating or sleeping, from a moral standpoint. Not murdering has no more moral significance on that view than not eating bitter fruit, or any other non-moral act. Whereas on the theist view, certain behaviors have moral significance, under your view (and jim's), they are undifferentiated from behaviors which do not. (Though it is possible that our moral intuition is good for our flourishing because it picks out moral truths, this is no longer clearly true and isn't necessitated by anything.)

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Morality, ethics and atheism

Post by JimC » Sat May 07, 2022 9:14 pm

Hermit wrote:
Sat May 07, 2022 3:28 am
L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Fri May 06, 2022 4:12 pm
Morality is an aspect of human culture. If it is not something handed down to our species by a deity, it must have some other origin.
That - human culture - is the origin of morality. Attempts to show that moral precepts have emanated from evolved nature are nonsensical. There are just too many - often contradictory ones - in location and time. They are social.
Again, missing my point entirely. I am not asserting that "moral precepts have emanated from evolved nature". Precept means a rule of some sort, and is another way of suggesting I am getting an "ought" from an "is".

What I have said is that our evolutionary history has left us with a series of tendencies (which are by no means "instincts"), largely emotional, deriving from millions of years of small group living. An aspect of those tendencies (amongst others) is the ability to cooperate, to empathise, to have fellow feeling with other humans. Simply, this provides an emotional starting point, built in as it were, to any system of morality which emphasises (as most do) for treating others well. It is not a precept, it is not a system of morality, but it can be made use of in any system developed. In my OP, I was contrasting this with certain strands of religious thinking, which would view the starting point of human compassion as requiring a touch of the divine, something that could not arise in the material world. It can, and it does...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests