Are values purely subjective?

Cypress said:
There are unequivocally universal values widely common to all human cultures.
Click to expand...

I would equivocate just a little bit.
There are protocols seemingly common to all cultures
but subjective values are about personal, not communal, impressions.

Protocols are influenced by peer pressure while values are less so.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Those are all progressions. A trait not shared by any other species on the planet. Animals evolve but don't reason their way to a better existence.
Click to expand...

Sure, your right, our technology, our art, our language, our ethics evolve.

I'm pretty sure the social behavior of squirrels hasn't changed much in fifty thousand years.
 
Concart said:
I agree, but I would suggest that natural selection has favored those values. I'm not convinced that those values are objectively right or wrong, but they tend to be favored because they advance civilization. Interesting question, but my belief is that while society agrees on those principles, they also agree on when we can be free to violate them for the good of society. My take, but I think we advance as any species advances, through natural selection that favors characteristics that will most likely be passed on. We have a unique ability to teach, but we are simply teaching values that are important to us and passing those on.
Click to expand...

If that was completely true, then why don't beavers now build concrete or rock dams? Rabbits more defensive burrows? Human beings are the only ones who can use their minds to leave the present and look into a better future. That's not "natural selection", IMO. That's a unique ability.

Where I agree natural selection would come into play is human conflict. As discussed with 'Murica, the militant atheist, the Law of the Jungle works well when it comes to war. The strong conquer the weak. The superior dominate the inferior. That's a purely logical POV for people who believe there is nothing except birth, some stuff happening then death.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I would equivocate just a little bit.
There are protocols seemingly common to all cultures
but subjective values are about personal, not communal, impressions.

Protocols are influenced by peer pressure while values are less so.
Click to expand...

I think values are different than protocols.

Protocols sound like rules for legal, civil, or administrative contexts.

Values can be something we aspire to for it's own sake. We usually admire courage, generosity, humility for their own sake. Not because they have a legal, civil, administrative, ritual benefit.
 
Doc Dutch said:
If that was completely true, then why don't beavers now build concrete or rock dams? Rabbits more defensive burrows? Human beings are the only ones who can use their minds to leave the present and look into a better future. That's not "natural selection", IMO. That's a unique ability.

Where I agree natural selection would come into play is human conflict. As discussed with 'Murica, the militant atheist, the Law of the Jungle works well when it comes to war. The strong conquer the weak. The superior dominate the inferior. That's a purely logical POV for people who believe there is nothing except birth, some stuff happening then death.
Click to expand...

Who says other species will not develop that same ability. Natural selection and evolution have not suddenly stopped. We know that some whales appear to communicate with one another, and we have seen other higher mammals that exhibit emotions. At this point in time, we appear to be the only species that is capable of understanding their mortality, but it seems to me very unlikely it will remain that way. In 100,000 years, we may very well not be the dominant species, or even the most intelligent one.

As for your last part, I believe empathy is a favored characteristic, and it allows us to better function in a society where the weak are often preyed on. Again, my take. This is a philosophical question with a strong connection to biology and sociology. I believe that there is birth, we live, we die. I'm fine with that, it does not make me some crazed animal who wants to dominate those who are weaker than I am because there isn't some external power wielding a big stick. I believe very strongly that empathy is far more important to a fair and functioning society than is the belief in objective morality.
 
Concart said:
I agree, but I would suggest that natural selection has favored those values. I'm not convinced that those values are objectively right or wrong, but they tend to be favored because they advance civilization. Interesting question, but my belief is that while society agrees on those principles, they also agree on when we can be free to violate them for the good of society. My take, but I think we advance as any species advances, through natural selection that favors characteristics that will most likely be passed on. We have a unique ability to teach, but we are simply teaching values that are important to us and passing those on.
Click to expand...

We are obviously ultimately products of biology.

But there is a whole pantheon of human values, ethics, and actions that cannot be explained by a genetic code perpetuating itself by the laws of biological evolution.

The fact that we can freely choose, or not choose, to practice humility, temperance, mercy, or altruism towards total strangers means we are not being compelled by our genes.

The reason Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan was seen as radical is because it involved charitable acts of kindness to a complete stranger who might even be considered a rival or enemy.

Practicing altruism for one's offspring, siblings, parents makes sense from the perspective of evolution. Using your own resources to help total strangers you will never see again has no evolutionary benefit for the perpetuation of your genes.
 
Cypress said:
We are obviously ultimately products of biology.

But there is a whole pantheon of human values, ethics, and actions that cannot be explained by a genetic code perpetuating itself by the laws of biological evolution.

The fact that we can freely choose, or not choose, to practice humility, temperance, mercy, or altruism towards total strangers means we are not being compelled by our genes.

The reason Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan was seen as radical is because it involved charitable acts of kindness to a complete stranger who might even be considered a rival or enemy.

Practicing altruism for one's offspring, siblings, parents makes sense from the perspective of evolution. Using your own resources to help total strangers you will never see again has no evolutionary benefit.
Click to expand...


First off, I LOVE these discussion. That siad, I disagree with the highlighted. People do things because they make a calculation based on how their decision will make THEM feel. People who feel better about themselves are more likely to have strong family unit values, and that most certainly will be favored by evolution. Empathy guides altruism IMHO. Not a universal sense of right and wrong. Again, this is an opinion, and the answer to this question is going to be debated for centuries.
 
Concart said:
Who says other species will not develop that same ability.

Natural selection and evolution have not suddenly stopped. We know that some whales appear to communicate with one another, and we have seen other higher mammals that exhibit emotions. At this point in time, we appear to be the only species that is capable of understanding their mortality, but it seems to me very unlikely it will remain that way. In 100,000 years, we may very well not be the dominant species, or even the most intelligent one.

As for your last part, I believe empathy is a favored characteristic, and it allows us to better function in a society where the weak are often preyed on. Again, my take. This is a philosophical question with a strong connection to biology and sociology. I believe that there is birth, we live, we die. I'm fine with that, it does not make me some crazed animal who wants to dominate those who are weaker than I am because there isn't some external power wielding a big stick. I believe very strongly that empathy is far more important to a fair and functioning society than is the belief in objective morality.
Click to expand...
Maybe they will. So far we're the only ones on this planet. OTOH, human beings tend to kill of the competition and, through natural selection, we've become very, very good at it. :thup:

Sure, other species display various levels of sophistication. In previous conversations on this subject, the dividing line seems to be between those species who react only to their genetics and experiences and, humans, who have the ability to look forward and work towards a future goal. A term for that is synergy; something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Feel free to take a whack at explaining why human beings fit this definition. Some people use religion (God did it). Others have looked for natural reasons. The concern about AI is a synergistic one; that a sufficiently sophisticated computer program can make the leap into exceeding it's programming. Regardless if spiritual or natural, the phenomenon exists.

Agreed empathy plays a part in people working well enough together to build a society. Still, how far does that empathy go? Trumpers preach about it but don't exhibit it when it comes to people darker than a piece of notebook paper or "shithole countries". The Nazis didn't exhibit it when they killed 11 million people in their concentration camps. Euro-Americans didn't exhibit it toward Native Americans. The Japanese toward the Chinese in the early 20th century. The Romans. The list goes on.
 
Concart said:
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

First off, I LOVE these discussion. That siad, I disagree with the highlighted. People do things because they make a calculation based on how their decision will make THEM feel. People who feel better about themselves are more likely to have strong family unit values, and that most certainly will be favored by evolution. Empathy guides altruism IMHO. Not a universal sense of right and wrong. Again, this is an opinion, and the answer to this question is going to be debated for centuries.
Click to expand...

While that's a high-minded ideal, in practical terms, history proves humans don't usually follow through with such values. Most people mind their own business and are concerned about protecting themselves and their own. After that, they don't care much. It follows a standard bell curve in that there are extremes, both those who seek to harm others and those who are altruistic.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Maybe. Sometimes, as you already know, killing off worthless members of the tribe benefits the entire tribe.

"Culling the herd" of useless, non-productive members saves resources and prevents the herd/tribe/troop/whatever from being dragged down by inefficiency.
Click to expand...

So you suggest we kill all religious people.
 
Cypress said:
I doubt it, sounds like a blind guess.

It is true all mammals are biologically predisposed to protecting their offspring, cooperating with tribal peers for self protection and resource acquisition

But there is no biological evolutionary benefit to helping a complete stranger you may never see again.

That's why Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan was seen as so radical.

The ancient Greeks believed might makes right, as did many ancient civilizations. Even today, that is a common practice. I don't see anything about evolution guiding Vlad Putin or Donald Trump away from greed, avarice, or cruelty..

Altruism, humility, temperance don't seem to be driven by genes. We can choose when or if we practice those virtues, so genes aren't the driving factor.
Click to expand...

But other intelligent animals help each other. I can show you videos of primates and elephants helping strangers. I can show you videos of intelligent marine mammals helping humans. Even bats are known to rescue fallen babies that aren't related to themselves.
 
America said:
So you suggest we kill all religious people.
Click to expand...
There's that illogical, emotional tendency to leap to conclusions again.

You seem more likely to be related to Perry PhD than Arthur C. Clark, son. You're immature, opinionated and illogical.
 
BidenPresident said:
Absolutely false.
Click to expand...
If you read Homer, it's obvious that might makes right was prevalent in Greek thinking, as it was in Assyrian and Roman thinking.

There is no genetic code that is compelling Vlad Putin away from acts of cruelty, genocide , and greed.

The Greeks, Assyrians , Babylonians would routinely slaughter or enslave the populations of cities they conquered.


Anyone who thinks empathy, compassion, and mercy are just hard wired into human genetic code is kidding themselves.


Those kind of human ethics were elevated to moral imperatives by human intellectual contemplation, usually philosophers or religious prophets.
 
Cypress said:
If you read Homer, it's obvious that might makes right was prevalent in Greek thinking, as it was in Assyrian and Roman thinking.

There is no genetic code that is compelling Vlad Putin away from acts of cruelty, genocide , and greed.

The Greeks, Assyrians , Babylonians would routinely slaughter or enslave the populations of cities they conquered.


Anyone who thinks empathy, compassion, and mercy are just hard wired into human genetic code is kidding themselves.


Those kind of human ethics were elevated to moral imperatives by human intellectual contemplation, usually philosophers or religious prophets.
Click to expand...

I've read Homer and you are wrong.
 
Cypress said:
If you read Homer, it's obvious that might makes right was prevalent in Greek thinking, as it was in Assyrian and Roman thinking.

There is no genetic code that is compelling Vlad Putin away from acts of cruelty, genocide , and greed.

The Greeks, Assyrians , Babylonians would routinely slaughter or enslave the populations of cities they conquered.


Anyone who thinks empathy, compassion, and mercy are just hard wired into human genetic code is kidding themselves.


Those kind of human ethics were elevated to moral imperatives by human intellectual contemplation, usually philosophers or religious prophets.
Click to expand...

No need to argue. You want everyone to believe in your religion.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Maybe they will. So far we're the only ones on this planet. OTOH, human beings tend to kill of the competition and, through natural selection, we've become very, very good at it. :thup:

Sure, other species display various levels of sophistication. In previous conversations on this subject, the dividing line seems to be between those species who react only to their genetics and experiences and, humans, who have the ability to look forward and work towards a future goal. A term for that is synergy; something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Feel free to take a whack at explaining why human beings fit this definition. Some people use religion (God did it). Others have looked for natural reasons. The concern about AI is a synergistic one; that a sufficiently sophisticated computer program can make the leap into exceeding it's programming. Regardless if spiritual or natural, the phenomenon exists.

Agreed empathy plays a part in people working well enough together to build a society. Still, how far does that empathy go? Trumpers preach about it but don't exhibit it when it comes to people darker than a piece of notebook paper or "shithole countries". The Nazis didn't exhibit it when they killed 11 million people in their concentration camps. Euro-Americans didn't exhibit it toward Native Americans. The Japanese toward the Chinese in the early 20th century. The Romans. The list goes on.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the empathetic tend to win the day in the end. My wife accuses me of being a Pollyanna, but at heart, I am, at the very least, a half full kind of guy. And in the end, I think empathy will be the downfall of the Trump cult. People are angry about how OTHER people are being treated, not just themselves. Not everyone has empathy. Some people simply lack that ability. I don't believe that the Tromp cult has it on an individual OR a collective basis.

AI might be the death of us. It deserves it's own thread.

It's pretty easy to take a look at this thread and know who is actually capable of critical thinking. A topic like this comes with a virtual threadban list. :)

End of the day, I believe that the Arc of moral history is long but it bends towards justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top