Are values purely subjective?

[BidenPresident]

I've read Beyond Good and Evil, which seems to touch on most of his major ideas.

I doubt I'll invest the time to read his entire collected works. But if I did read one more work of his what would you recommend?

Will to Power. It is in sections. You can read different parts without needing to read it all.

This may be the text people think advocates power as an end in itself. Which it does not. Nietzsche was not that interested in politics.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on advanced and abstraction. That's the synergistic effect. It's based upon evolutionary requirements and survival but the culmination goes beyond those basics.

Yes, it ultimately comes down to the fact biology gave us highly advanced sentience and cognition.

But Dawkins is wrong. Any reduction of human ethics and values to just strict biological evolutionary requirements doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Cypress]

Will to Power. It is in sections. You can read different parts without needing to read it all.

This may be the text people think advocates power as an end in itself. Which it does not. Nietzsche was not that interested in politics.

Sounds good

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, it ultimately comes down to the fact biology gave us highly advanced sentience and cognition.

But Dawkins is wrong. Any reduction of human ethics and values to just strict biological evolutionary requirements doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

It's the synergistic effect; biology and evolution puts all life on this path. So far only human beings are known to have made the leap of becoming more than the sum of their parts.

Of course, it helps that our ancestors killed off all the competition.

 

[Into Тhe Night]

Speak for yourself.

I have at least 80 posts on this board stating that the moral relativists are wrong, and not everything is culturally relative.

There are unequivocally universal values widely common to all human cultures.

But these "universal values" are a product of evolution. We're kind to each other because it benefits the tribe, which ultimately benefits the individual.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

But these "universal values" are a product of evolution. We're kind to each other because it benefits the tribe, which ultimately benefits the individual.

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.

 

[Cypress]

But these "universal values" are a product of evolution. We're kind to each other because it benefits the tribe, which ultimately benefits the individual.

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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

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.

Agreed. As 'Murica is indicating, it makes more evolutionary sense to kill strangers and take all of their stuff such as food, clothing and weapons. The Law of the Jungle.
Survival of the Fittest. Pure soulless, animalistic behavior.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. As 'Murica is indicating, it makes more evolutionary sense to kill strangers and take all of their stuff such as food, clothing and weapons. The Law of the Jungle.
Survival of the Fittest. Pure soulless, animalistic behavior.

Chimpanzees of one group will attack or kill the chimpanzees of another group for their territory and resources.

We are very closely related to chimpanzees.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Chimpanzees of one group will attack or kill the chimpanzees of another group for their territory and resources.

We are very closely related to chimpanzees.

No doubt they are all militant atheists.

 

[Cypress]

No doubt they are all militant atheists.

Actions which can perpetuate and pass on your genetic code is evolutionarily advantageous.

Defending your territory, protecting your offspring, cooperating with the peers in your pack for resource acquisition have an evolutionary benefit.


There is no evolutionary benefit to practicing altruism with complete strangers, practicing humility, temperance, or pacifism.

The fact that we voluntarily choose whether or not to practice these virtues is proof our genes aren't driving us towards these kinds of values.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actions which can perpetuate and pass on your genetic code is evolutionarily advantageous.

Defending your territory, protecting your offspring, cooperating with the peers in your pack for self defense have an evolutionary benefit.


There is no evolutionary benefit to practicing altruism with complete strangers, practicing humility, temperance, or pacifism.

The fact that we voluntarily choose whether or not to practice these virtues is proof our genes aren't driving us towards these kinds of values.

Agreed. Specifically, one's own genes. The new Lion King will often kill all the cubs so that 1) the lionesses won't be burdened with cubs and will come into heat and 2) to ensure only his genes are in the pride. Militant atheism at work.

https://wwnature.com/why-do-lions-kill-cubs/
Infanticide by Lions
It is not automatic that the new dominant males in the pride will commit infanticide. The lions only need assurance that they will dominate the pride. The lionesses sometimes successfully convince the new males not to eliminate the cubs. Should a male accept the offspring from the former ruling male, he will henceforth safeguard them.

When a new alliance of males arrives to inherit the pride, it sometimes eliminates the lionesses’ cubs in the pride. Research shows that the male lions kill the cubs because they’re not biologically related to them. Thus, they are unwilling to use their energy in futility, knowing that the lioness will propagate the other lions’ genes instead. Moreover, the lions think that the lionesses won’t be responsive to mating while nursing their offspring, so they kill their cubs to initiate mating and later procreate

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. Specifically, one's own genes. The new Lion King will often kill all the cubs so that 1) the lionesses won't be burdened with cubs and will come into heat and 2) to ensure only his genes are in the pride. Militant atheism at work.

https://wwnature.com/why-do-lions-kill-cubs/
Infanticide by Lions
It is not automatic that the new dominant males in the pride will commit infanticide. The lions only need assurance that they will dominate the pride. The lionesses sometimes successfully convince the new males not to eliminate the cubs. Should a male accept the offspring from the former ruling male, he will henceforth safeguard them.

When a new alliance of males arrives to inherit the pride, it sometimes eliminates the lionesses’ cubs in the pride. Research shows that the male lions kill the cubs because they’re not biologically related to them. Thus, they are unwilling to use their energy in futility, knowing that the lioness will propagate the other lions’ genes instead. Moreover, the lions think that the lionesses won’t be responsive to mating while nursing their offspring, so they kill their cubs to initiate mating and later procreate

I was always disturbed by the alpha male killing the cubs of his competitor, but it makes sense if the goal is evolution and perpetuation of one's genes.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I was always disturbed by the alpha male killing the cubs of his competitor, but it makes sense if the goal is evolution and perpetuation of one's genes.

Agreed. For those who believe in a "dumb" universe where the only goal is survival, then killing off the competition makes sense. This is directly in line with 'Murica's philosophy even though he dances away from admitting it.

However, if one believes the Universe is intelligent, as I do, then survival is only a basic goal. As life evolves to higher forms, then more sophisticated, more intelligent lifeforms would be able to see past their basic instincts and see a higher purpose such as your Good Samaritan analogy.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I was always disturbed by the alpha male killing the cubs of his competitor, but it makes sense if the goal is evolution and perpetuation of one's genes.

Agreed. For those who believe in a "dumb" universe where the only goal is survival, then killing off the competition makes sense. This is directly in line with 'Murica's philosophy even though he dances away from admitting it.

However, if one believes the Universe is intelligent, as I do, then survival is only a basic goal. As life evolves to higher forms, then more sophisticated, more intelligent lifeforms would be able to see past their basic instincts and see a higher purpose such as your Good Samaritan analogy.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed. For those who believe in a "dumb" universe where the only goal is survival, then killing off the competition makes sense. This is directly in line with 'Murica's philosophy even though he dances away from admitting it.

However, if one believes the Universe is intelligent, as I do, then survival is only a basic goal. As life evolves to higher forms, then more sophisticated, more intelligent lifeforms would be able to see past their basic instincts and see a higher purpose such as your Good Samaritan analogy.

The claim that biological evolutionary requirements are the direct explanation for all human values, ethics, activities was always little more than a blind guess. There's more to it than that.

Obviously, the human mind is able to transcend our basic evolutionary requirements.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The claim that biological evolutionary requirements are the direct explanation for all human values, ethics, activities was always little more than a blind guess. There's more to it than that.

Obviously, the human mind is able to transcend our basic evolutionary requirements.

Agreed that evolution doesn't account for the more sophisticated levels of human behavior. Why this behavior is not seen in other Earthly creatures is a mystery even though some elements can be seen in them such as chimps. One theory is that human beings eliminated the competition leaving only the lesser minds in the jungle. LOL

One concern about AI is that, when it reaches a high enough point of sophistication that it will, on its own, supersede and exceed its programming. Human beings seem to have accomplished that through the natural process of evolution; we are greater than the sum of our parts and genetic programming.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed that evolution doesn't account for the more sophisticated levels of human behavior. Why this behavior is not seen in other Earthly creatures is a mystery even though some elements can be seen in them such as chimps. One theory is that human beings eliminated the competition leaving only the lesser minds in the jungle. LOL

One concern about AI is that, when it reaches a high enough point of sophistication that it will, on its own, supersede and exceed its programming. Human beings seem to have accomplished that through the natural process of evolution; we are greater than the sum of our parts and genetic programming.

Some insights:

The development of agriculture gave rise to sedentary cultures, where certain privileged classes could devote time to thinking about the human condition.

The human mind is able to use reason and abstract thought in a way other species can't.

A rise in warfare and violence in the late Bronze age may have got humans thinking about existential meaning in their individual lives, to try to seek meaning apart from the unrelenting savagery.

 

[Concart]

Speak for yourself.

I have at least 80 posts on this board stating that the moral relativists are wrong, and not everything is culturally relative.

There are unequivocally universal values widely common to all human cultures.

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.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Some insights:

The development of agriculture gave rise to sedentary cultures, where certain privileged classes could devote time to thinking about the human condition.

The human mind is able to use reason and abstract thought in a way other species can't.

A rise in warfare and violence in the late Bronze age may have got humans thinking about existential meaning in their individual lives, to try to seek meaning apart from the unrelenting savagery.

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.