God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

[Margot]

Slavery, child abuse, human sacrifice, lying, cheating , sexual immorality, betrayal, stealing, murder, false pride, arrogance, hate, avarice, greed are uniformly condemned by all major world religions and ethical thought systems

Drinking,smoking ,gambling!

 

[Cypress]

It doesn't take much to strip human beings who were raised within egalitarian and benevolent standards down to their animal natures. Post-Katrina New Orleans, 1/6 and the George Floyd riots are examples from this century. The genocides in Croatia is another example of humans at their most natural and violent state.

Yes, it's patently obvious that humans frequently fall short of an absolute moral standard. If everyone was perfect and sinless we wouldn't even ever be talking about morals

The fact that 98 percent of us can look at actual looters, cheaters, and thieves and immediately have an innate sense of revulsion seems to point to an absolute standard of right and wrong written on the human conscience- which exists even when we fail living up to that standard.

 

[Cypress]

Drinking,smoking ,gambling!

Moral relativism as a concept didn't even really exist until the postmodernist philosophers elevated it to prominence in the 20th century, and I never felt it made much sense and was actually internally inconsistent.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Yes, it's patently obvious that humans frequently fall short of an absolute moral standard. If everyone was perfect and sinless we wouldn't even ever be talking about morals

The fact that 98 percent of us can look at actual looters, cheaters, and thieves and immediately have an innate sense of revulsion seems to point to an absolute standard of right and wrong written on the human conscience- which exists even when we fail living up to that standard.

Maybe 98% in the US or Western Europe. Not so much in other parts of the world. Again, this is learned behavior, not genetic.

 

[Cypress]

Maybe 98% in the US or Western Europe. Not so much in other parts of the world. Again, this is learned behavior, not genetic.

I think it is a universal standard. Trump supporters and Putin supporters bend themselves into pretzels to convince themselves to believe Don and Vlad are not liars and cheaters - precisely because they have an innate sense that there is absolute right and wrong. That's why they desperately try to convince themselves their heroes are not cheaters

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I think it is a universal standard. Trump supporters and Putin supporters bend themselves into pretzels to convince themselves to believe Don and Vlad are not liars and cheaters - precisely because they have an innate sense that there is absolute right and wrong. That's why they desperately try to convince themselves their heroes are not cheaters

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point since, while there are certainly some genetic components to personality, mostly we're blank slates when it comes to social conditioning.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

I agree with that completely, but what I am saying is that is a type of ethical system based on reciprocity and mutual advantage.

What the ancient prophets and sages seemed to be saying is that humans have the psychological potential to universalize concepts of absolute right and wrong, independent of reciprocity, mutual advantage, or the natural laws of biology and survival.

You tend to ponder on a higher level order than I do when we're discussing things of a esoteric nature. IMO most of our human morals/laws are based on things that for us have an immediate and then *eventually) an evolutionary advantage. A couple of examples:

1. Murder, which is generally defined as the killing of someone who was not attacking or harming you. It is difficult to keep a community togther if you have a violent individual killing others in your group. It cuts down on the number of hunters, warriors, child-bearers/care-takers, workers.. It causes discord and grief and instability, anger, and revenge.

2. Incest. Our ancestors were keen observers of their natural world. There's no doubt that they were very aware of the animal world and noticed that siblings did not mate with siblings, nor parents with their offspring. Once they began to keep and raise animals for food, they saw up close what happens with inbreeding. I'm quite sure that they also saw what happens in very small human groups who produced children with each other.

3. Monogamy/adultery. We are basically a monogamous species. It takes many years of dedication and support to raise an infant to a self-sufficient adult. Family groups and clans are security for raising children. Males are far more likely to want to provide for offspring that they know are their own. It's not a flaw; you just lack the amount of the "love hormone" (oxytocin) that women have which makes us want to mother all small creatures.

If you look at recorded history we can always find exceptions to these rules for life. Some cultures have practiced human sacrifice of their own clan members. Some have encouraged sexual experiences between siblings (Egypt, anyone?). Some have practiced the sharing of wives and husbands with visitors or clan members. Those are rare though.

IMO our higher levels of morality did not come about until we were living in large peaceful civilized groups in cities. Only then could we start giving thought to the ideals that we think of as morality today.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

You tend to ponder on a higher level order than I do when we're discussing things of a esoteric nature. IMO most of our human morals/laws are based on things that for us have an immediate and then *eventually) an evolutionary advantage. A couple of examples:

1. Murder, which is generally defined as the killing of someone who was not attacking or harming you. It is difficult to keep a community togther if you have a violent individual killing others in your group. It cuts down on the number of hunters, warriors, child-bearers/care-takers, workers.. It causes discord and grief and instability, anger, and revenge.

2. Incest. Our ancestors were keen observers of their natural world. There's no doubt that they were very aware of the animal world and noticed that siblings did not mate with siblings, nor parents with their offspring. Once they began to keep and raise animals for food, they saw up close what happens with inbreeding. I'm quite sure that they also saw what happens in very small human groups who produced children with each other.

3. Monogamy/adultery. We are basically a monogamous species. It takes many years of dedication and support to raise an infant to a self-sufficient adult. Family groups and clans are security for raising children. Males are far more likely to want to provide for offspring that they know are their own. It's not a flaw; you just lack the amount of the "love hormone" (oxytocin) that women have which makes us want to mother all small creatures.

Good analysis.

If you look at recorded history we can always find exceptions to these rules for life. Some cultures have practiced human sacrifice of their own clan members. Some have encouraged sexual experiences between siblings (Egypt, anyone?). Some have practiced the sharing of wives and husbands with visitors or clan members. Those are rare though.

IMO our higher levels of morality did not come about until we were living in large peaceful civilized groups in cities. Only then could we start giving thought to the ideals that we think of as morality today.

Which goes to my POV that our morality is learned, not innate. Societies which don't have a developed morality that respects the rights of others end up falling apart. The social glue seems to be mutual defense, mutual support and mutual respect.

 

[Daylight63]

Is there any evidence whatsoever of any society of humans that was bereft of morals and murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc were the norm?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Is there any evidence whatsoever of any society of humans that was bereft of morals and murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc were the norm?

All such societies fall apart. Consider the collapse of the Roman empire.

 

[Cypress]

You tend to ponder on a higher level order than I do when we're discussing things of a esoteric nature. IMO most of our human morals/laws are based on things that for us have an immediate and then *eventually) an evolutionary advantage. A couple of examples:

1. Murder, which is generally defined as the killing of someone who was not attacking or harming you. It is difficult to keep a community togther if you have a violent individual killing others in your group. It cuts down on the number of hunters, warriors, child-bearers/care-takers, workers.. It causes discord and grief and instability, anger, and revenge.

2. Incest. Our ancestors were keen observers of their natural world. There's no doubt that they were very aware of the animal world and noticed that siblings did not mate with siblings, nor parents with their offspring. Once they began to keep and raise animals for food, they saw up close what happens with inbreeding. I'm quite sure that they also saw what happens in very small human groups who produced children with each other.

3. Monogamy/adultery. We are basically a monogamous species. It takes many years of dedication and support to raise an infant to a self-sufficient adult. Family groups and clans are security for raising children. Males are far more likely to want to provide for offspring that they know are their own. It's not a flaw; you just lack the amount of the "love hormone" (oxytocin) that women have which makes us want to mother all small creatures.

If you look at recorded history we can always find exceptions to these rules for life. Some cultures have practiced human sacrifice of their own clan members. Some have encouraged sexual experiences between siblings (Egypt, anyone?). Some have practiced the sharing of wives and husbands with visitors or clan members. Those are rare though.

IMO our higher levels of morality did not come about until we were living in large peaceful civilized groups in cities. Only then could we start giving thought to the ideals that we think of as morality today.

Thanks.
You're right . There is indeed morality based on utility, on reciprocity, on mutual advantage.

The Greeks believed slavery was needed so the free citizens could concentrate on politics, commerce, and war. That is a utilitarian calculation. The idea that individual human life has an innate value and a spiritual equality to all others is a late comer to human thought and practice.

I don't even deny that moral relativists have some important insights.

But I don't think morality begins and ends at utility and reciprocity. Selfless sacrifice for complete strangers or charitable treatment of rivals and enemies is not explained by utility or the laws of biology and natural selection.

I don't think there ever really was such a thing as peaceful civilized cities during all of the Bronze Age, classical antiquity, or the Middle Ages . Cities were violent dangerous places. Child sacrifice, crime, tyranny, war were neither rare nor anomalous. So to me, that concept doesn't have much explanatory power for why humans evolved a higher moral consciousness.

I think while there is utilitarian calculation, reciprocity, and mutual advantage built into many human values and social conventions, I also think there is absolute right and wrong. We could not have had the Nuremberg trials without an appeal to universal concepts of objective moral truth

 

[Cypress]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that point since, while there are certainly some genetic components to personality, mostly we're blank slates when it comes to social conditioning.

Thanks for the debate.
I cannot prove conclusively that moral relativism is wrong, just that I don't think it's the whole story.

People who visit the Aushwitz memorial can be brought to tears, even though the people who suffered and died there were not family, friends, neighbors, or even fellow countrymen. They were nameless and faceless complete strangers.

To me, the best explanation of that is that buried deep in human conscience is a belief in an objective moral truth, a sense of absolute right and wrong that goes beyond utility, reciprocity, mutual advantage, social convention, popular opinion, or legislative fiat.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress has never once claimed to be Christian, let alone a "fundamentalist Christian"!
He's a seeker of truth.

I have posted a lot of threads of the ideas of important atheist thinkers, to give them equal time.

I have sought knowledge and truth from important atheists like Nietchze, Sartre, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens.

And to some extent I have profited from exposure to them.

But upon many years of reflection, I think I have profited more from exposure to Plato, Confucius, Laozi, Shakespeare, Siddhartha Buddha, and Jesus, than I have from Nietchze, Sartre, Dawkins, and Hitchens .

 

[Cypress]

Is there any evidence whatsoever of any society of humans that was bereft of morals and murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc were the norm?

In my day, only a small minority of college students got an A in class, but that was the standard everyone still aspired to.

The fact that people fail frequently to clear the ethical bar set by the Decalogue, the five Jain vows, or the Sermon on the Mount does not invalidate them as an aspirational goal we are supposed to aim for .

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Is there any evidence whatsoever of any society of humans that was bereft of morals and murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc were the norm?

I'm sure there are probably many. Certainly early Brits were not fond of the Viking invaders who pillaged, looted, raped, burned. @Cypress is a keen student of ancient history; no doubt he can tell us about others.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Thanks for the debate.
I cannot prove conclusively that moral relativism is wrong, just that I don't think it's the whole story.

People who visit the Aushwitz memorial can be brought to tears, even though the people who suffered and died there were not family, friends, neighbors, or even fellow countrymen. They were nameless and faceless complete strangers.

To me, the best explanation of that is that buried deep in human conscience is a belief in an objective moral truth, a sense of absolute right and wrong that goes beyond utility, reciprocity, mutual advantage, social convention, popular opinion, or legislative fiat.

I tear up watching Saving Private Ryan. Having emotions and empathy are examples of mature, well socialized people. A two year old doesn't give a shit. Notice that many MAGAts have the emotional maturity of a child. While that may partly be genetic due to disease such as paranoia and/or dementia, I think a lot of it is learned behavior.

Consider two landmark psych experiments: Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. Both examine human behavior in social conditions. In Milgram's experiment, some subjects broke down crying but still pushed the button administering what they thought was a potentially lethal shock to another person. In Zimbardo's experiment. People assumed the roles of their positions despite the fact all were basically the same class of people. It was a herd mentality. 1/6 and the George Floyd riots are real world examples of this behavior.

There was no "objective moral truth" seen in either of those situations by those in it. As those who were a arrested and facing justice often testified, they were just "swept up" in the event. IMO, that means their animal instincts were in control, not their reasoning minds.

Milgram Shock Experiment | Summary | Results | Ethics

Milgram experiment, controversial series of experiments examining obedience to authority conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram.

www.simplypsychology.org

an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo's Famous Study

In Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, guards or prisoners. after a few days, the prisoners staged a failed revolt and were consequently punished and humiliated by the guards.

www.simplypsychology.org

• The experiment was conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo to examine situational forces versus dispositions in human behavior.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I'm sure there are probably many. Certainly early Brits were not fond of the Viking invaders who pillaged, looted, raped, burned. @Cypress is a keen student of ancient history; no doubt he can tell us about others.

Good example. It points out that, while those within a group may respect the rights of their own kind, they have little sympathy or concern about other groups.

 

[Cypress]

I tear up watching Saving Private Ryan. Having emotions and empathy are examples of mature, well socialized people. A two year old doesn't give a shit. Notice that many MAGAts have the emotional maturity of a child. While that may partly be genetic due to disease such as paranoia and/or dementia, I think a lot of it is learned behavior.

Consider two landmark psych experiments: Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority and Philip Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. Both examine human behavior in social conditions. In Milgram's experiment, some subjects broke down crying but still pushed the button administering what they thought was a potentially lethal shock to another person. In Zimbardo's experiment. People assumed the roles of their positions despite the fact all were basically the same class of people. It was a herd mentality. 1/6 and the George Floyd riots are real world examples of this behavior.

There was no "objective moral truth" seen in either of those situations by those in it. As those who were a arrested and facing justice often testified, they were just "swept up" in the event. IMO, that means their animal instincts were in control, not their reasoning minds.

Milgram Shock Experiment | Summary | Results | Ethics

Milgram experiment, controversial series of experiments examining obedience to authority conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram.

www.simplypsychology.org

an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.

Stanford Prison Experiment: Zimbardo's Famous Study

In Zimbardo's Stanford Prison experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, guards or prisoners. after a few days, the prisoners staged a failed revolt and were consequently punished and humiliated by the guards.

www.simplypsychology.org

• The experiment was conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo to examine situational forces versus dispositions in human behavior.

The human brain takes years to develop, so we have ended up saying empathy is a universal moral value, excepting sociopaths, the mentally deranged, and toddlers.

The fact that many people fail to live up to a moral standard does not invalidate it's existence. Looking back and reflecting on the experience of shocking people, most of those students probably felt regret and shame, AKA their moral conscience kicked on. Where did that regret come from?

I think most Americans were morally shocked at the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib, even knowing some of those prisoners quite possibly were our rivals and enemies.

Where is the utility and reciprocity in that?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The human brain takes years to develop, so we have ended up saying empathy is a universal moral value, excepting sociopaths, the mentally deranged, and toddlers.

The fact that many people fail to live up to a moral standard does not invalidate it's existence. Looking back and reflecting on the experience of shocking people, most of those students probably felt regret and shame, AKA their moral conscience kicked on. Where did that regret come from?

I think most Americans were morally shocked at the pictures of torture at Abu Ghraib, even knowing some of those prisoners quite possibly were our rivals and enemies.

Where is the utility and reciprocity in that?

Agreed on development, but well socialized, moral people don't develop in a vacuum. Separating Nature and Nurture is a major area of research in psych studies. One of the best is Twin studies where twins who were separated at birth are tracked and studied through adulthood. An infamous (because it was unethical) was the forced separation of triplets placing them in three different economic groups of parents. Ethical studies do not include forced separations for psych experiments.

Agreed on Abu Ghraib, but, again, that's learned behavior. Someone in another culture could easily say "Yeah. That makes sense. Torture is justified."



FWIW, the movie "Three Identical Strangers" is available on Hulu: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7664504/

Nature vs. nurture: Do genes influence our morals?

Does education shape our moral values, or are our genetic profiles also responsible? New research suggests that DNA may play an important role.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

The well-known “nature versus nurture” debate goes back hundreds of years, and it is still of interest today.

It asks whether certain behaviors are rooted in our natural inclinations, or whether our social environment shapes them.
Recently, the release of the documentary Three Identical Strangers reignited some discussions into the importance of environmental factors and education versus that of heritable traits.

The documentary presents the case of a contentious “twin study” (or in this case “triplet study”) conducted in the 1960s. It involved separating identical triplets during infancy and adopting them out to different families as “only children” to assess how the siblings would evolve throughout their lives.

Decoding Nature and Nurture: Insights From Twin Studies

Genetics may play a greater role in distinguishing between disgust and fear than previously known, according to new research.

www.psychologytoday.com

Decoding Nature and Nurture: Insights From Twin Studies​

Research finds genetics may help us distinguish between disgust and fear.​

The nature versus nurture conundrum is an eternal debate. A recent study of 175 identical and 88 fraternal adult twins explores some of the questions of how genes and the environment determine the fundamental aspects of the emotional and rational life of humans....

...One notable finding is that the results suggest genetics play a role in distinguishing between disgust and fear more so than positive emotions. The researchers state that this may be due to an evolutionary adaptation, as identifying threats is key to survival. In general, however, they speculate that environmental factors have a greater influence on the perception of emotional expressions since “the intentional (conscious) and accurate perception of others’ emotional expressions within a particular environmental context is a paramount skill for successful social interactions.” Because social expectations vary so widely across cultures, it follows that the environment and external influences play a greater role in shaping social and emotional interactions compared to genetics.

 

[Daylight63]

In my day, only a small minority of college students got an A in class, but that was the standard everyone still aspired to.

The fact that people fail frequently to clear the ethical bar set by the Decalogue, the five Jain vows, or the Sermon on the Mount does not invalidate them as an aspirational goal we are supposed to aim for .

The reason I asked was because if the moral teachers were necessary for us to have the basic morality of do not murder, do not steal, etc. then there must have been some societies in which those things were never taught.