Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

[Cypress]

That, of course, is your opinion, as we both understand. As mine is as well. However your "declarative" style makes it sound as if I'm simply making this all up.

I am not. I am by no means alone in any of this type of thinking:

Unselfish behavior has evolutionary reasons

Altruistic behavior is often seen as an exclusively human characteristic. However, behavioral research has uncovered numerous examples of altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom. In a new study, researchers at the University of Bern show that animals that help others “selflessly” to raise...

mediarelations.unibe.ch

So this thread has diverged and shifted from your first post - which claimed all social animals including humans have similar instincts for morality - to now we are carving out special exceptions for the uniqueness of human conscience.

That's right up my alley, because I've always said human conscience is unique, and can't be explained strictly by Darwinian evolution.

 

[Cypress]

Morality is only about way we treat others.

That is a vague narrative description but it's not a scientific or analytical explanation for the nature of human conscience.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I think you deal with exceptions as exceptions. Just because Jeffrey Dahmer finds it personally gratifying and moral to kill young men and have sex with their corpse doesn't mean you have to accept his input.

There will always be disagreements, but a thorough enough understanding our brains, and how outside events impact us, would make morality more and more objective.

That's not morality, that's a statement about instinct.

Observe: Once you have a bell curve of emotional responses, objectively observed by brain activity, then the option for modification arises. Either through genetic engineering or other less fundamental intervention.

There is what most of us feel, but what ought most of us to feel?

 

[Litmus]

Yes. Why is that a problem?

It SOUNDS unappealing when one says "selfishness" with a strong hint of the pejorative, but it really doesn't have to be anything more than that. And that's not bad. We're animals. Animals do one thing: survive. That's the job. In fact it's pretty much the only job.

Humans are again special because we can conceive of a situation that is different from what we currently find ourselves in and we think we are capable of having made choices that would be different, but really there's nothing wrong with admitting that in the end we are all just animals whose only job is to survive.

masons are paid to actively promote strife and war.

that's the problem.

 

[Daylight63]

So this thread has diverged and shifted from your first post - which claimed all social animals including humans have similar instincts for morality - to now we are carving out special exceptions for the uniqueness of human conscience.

My position has not shifted one iota. It is the same as it was. I have said there's a role for human thought but only as an AFTER THOUGHT to the moral impetus.

It is a post hoc explanation, not the reason.

Is my writing unclear? You seem intent on misrepresenting what I have said and I'm uncertain what you are missing about my point.

That's right up my alley, because I've always said human conscience is unique, and can't be explained strictly by Darwinian evolution.

You know that this is not what my position is. Is my position unclear to you or are you being obdurate on purpose?

 

[Litmus]

It's contradictory and inconsistent to say human morality is a product of evolutionary natural selection, but then turn around carve out a special exception for humans as a totally unique species in Earth's four billion year history.

There has to be a better explanation that doesn't require that kind of fancy dancing and flip flopping.

no it isn't.

cooperation works.

 

[Litmus]

My position has not shifted one iota. It is the same as it was. I have said there's a role for human thought but only as an AFTER THOUGHT to the moral impetus.

It is a post hoc explanation, not the reason.

Is my writing unclear? You seem intent on misrepresenting what I have said and I'm uncertain what you are missing about my point.



You know that this is not what my position is. Is my position unclear to you or are you being obdurate on purpose?

evil people cannot admit that morality is rational,

because they think "might make right" is rational, though it's just criminality made into a self righteous cope for psychotics.

 

[Cypress]

no it isn't.

cooperation works.

Human history is uniformly characterized by war and conflict

Any claim that humans just instinctively cooperate to maintain pacifist stable societies, where every person is protected and nurtured, flies in the face of thousands of years of history as well as the scientific tenets of evolution by natural selection.


Oskar Schindler is not explained by the claim he was self-interested in risking everything to save strangers for the sake of a "stable society "

 

[Litmus]

 

[Cypress]

evil people cannot admit that morality is rational,

You haven't been talking about morality.

You've been hollering about cooperation.

Cooperation is based on self-interest and mutual benefit.

There are no objectively admirable moral actions if the intent is ultimately based on self-interest and reciprocity. At that point it's just about self-preservation - which actually is consistent with Darwinian evolution

 

[Daylight63]

Human history is uniformly characterized by war and conflict

Any claim that humans just instinctively cooperate to maintain pacifist stable societies, where every person is protected and nurtured, flies in the face of thousands of years of history as well as the scientific tenets of evolution by natural selection.

No it doesn't.

You act as if somehow "stable societies" are somehow NOT part of evolution. The scientists clearly disagree with you:

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group

Oskar Schindler is not explained by the claim he was self-interested in risking everything to save strangers for the sake of a "stable society "

Again, this seems a facile point. Not really a serious riposte.

 

[Daylight63]

There are no objectively admirable moral actions if the intent is ultimately based on self-interest and reciprocity.

Let's see where the GOALPOSTS shifted there. I'm going to point to "objectively admirable". Why add that bit into the description?

Why on earth would morality require that it be "admirable"?????

Is eating food admirable? We do it naturally as well.

At that point it's just about self-preservation - which actually is consistent with Darwinian evolution

Yup. That would be the case. We're actually much simpler creatures than you would like us to be.

 

[Cypress]

Let's see where the GOALPOSTS shifted there. I'm going to point to "objectively admirable". Why add that bit into the description?

Why on earth would morality require that it be "admirable"?????

Is eating food admirable? We do it naturally as well.



Yup. That would be the case. We're actually much simpler creatures than you would like us to be.

I mentioned objectively admirable moral actions way earlier in this thread and how mutual cooperation doesn't represent objectively admirable moral acts because it's ultimately based on self-interest

So no goal posts were moved this morning

 

[Daylight63]

I mentioned objectively admirable moral actions way earlier in this thread and how mutual cooperation doesn't represent objectively admirable moral acts because it's ultimately based on self-interest

So no goal posts were moved this morning

So what role does "admirable" play in morality?


(Just as an aside this is actually an interesting point of discussion but you won't like it or what the scientists say about it).

 

[Cypress]

No it doesn't.

You act as if somehow "stable societies" are somehow NOT part of evolution. The scientists clearly disagree with you:

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/evolution-for-the-good-of-the-group

Again, this seems a facile point. Not really a serious riposte.

Summarize the article in your own words, don't just post a link.

Human societies have uniformly been characterized by war and conflict for thousands of years, up to and including today.

The claim that humans naturally form peaceful and stable societies doesn't pass the laugh test.

Thomas Hobbes had one of the best insights about this: Humans choose to give power to a government or central authority to protect us from our natural disposition to conflict and violence.

^^ That is not objectively admirable morality. That is self-preservation and self-interest

 

[Daylight63]

Summarize the article in your own words, don't just post a link.

It was posted merely to show that I am not making up the role of society in evolutionary development of social animals.

The claim that humans naturally form peaceful and stable societies doesn't pass the laugh test.

Pretty much every single evolutionary biologist sees society development as a significant evolutionary development for social animals. Not just humans, but many, many others.

I think we just lack a common level of understanding of evolution rendering it quite difficult for you to understand my point.

You seem to have an overly limited cartoonish view of evolutionary biology which is why I keep providing you with references to the point. To show you that I'm not making this up. It's pretty basic evolutionary biology.

 

[Cypress]

It was posted merely to show that I am not making up the role of society in evolutionary development of social animals.



Pretty much every single evolutionary biologist sees society development as a significant evolutionary development for social animals. Not just humans, but many, many others.

I think we just lack a common level of understanding of evolution rendering it quite difficult for you to understand my point.

You seem to have an overly limited cartoonish view of evolutionary biology which is why I keep providing you with references to the point. To show you that I'm not making this up. It's pretty basic evolutionary biology.

You didn't summarize the article in your own words, you just made some vague assertion.

You know as well as I do that humans by nature and disposition engage in conflict, competition and war.

There is no point attempting to deny it.

The reasons we sometimes can develop stable societies are for precisely the reasons Thomas Hobbes and John Locke stated: we choose to give power to a central authority to protect our property and to protect us from the violent natural state of humans.

That is not objective morality. That's self-preservation.

 

[Daylight63]

You didn't summarize the article in your own words, you just made some vague assertion.

You know as well as I do that humans by nature and disposition engage in conflict, competition and war.

There is no point attempting to deny it.

The reasons we sometimes can develop stable societies are for precisely the reasons Thomas Hobbes and John Locke stated: we choose to give power to a central authority to protect our property and to protect us from the violent natural state of humans.

That is not objective morality. That's self-preservation.

I am going to recommend a page that explains the development of SOCIAL GROUPS in animals and its evolutionary advantages as the scientists understand it.

I think will will in many of the gaps that are apparent in your points. I am not an evolutionary biologist so I'm not a great teacher on it, but clearly the basics of how evolutionary processes develop social behavior in animals to effect a positive advantage for them is something that your version of evolution somehow lacks:

LINK:

How Does Social Behavior Evolve?

This resource is from NATURE. While it is aimed at a younger audience I believe you can see the points.

Once you have more information on this part of evolutionary biology I think we can have a much more fruitful discussion.

 

[Yakuda]

You are just like Jesus.

No I'm not and never will be. He was perfect. You're evil and always will be. That's not my fault

 

[Cypress]

I am going to recommend a page that explains the development of SOCIAL GROUPS in animals and its evolutionary advantages as the scientists understand it.

I think will will in many of the gaps that are apparent in your points. I am not an evolutionary biologist so I'm not a great teacher on it, but clearly the basics of how evolutionary processes develop social behavior in animals to effect a positive advantage for them is something that your version of evolution somehow lacks:

LINK:

How Does Social Behavior Evolve?

This resource is from NATURE. While it is aimed at a younger audience I believe you can see the points.

Once you have more information on this part of evolutionary biology I think we can have a much more fruitful discussion.

Why don't you ever summarize these papers that you link to in your own words?

It makes me think you haven't read them.