Re: Morality, humanity and the 1%

John Harshman wrote:
> eswrite@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>eswrite@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>jspaceman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>>>From the article:
> >>>>>--------------------------------------
> >>>>>Which brings us, finally, to intelligent design. Some of America's most
> >>>>>powerful politicians have a deep hatred for Darwinism.
> >>>>
> >>>>I think this is because they think we cannot be humans without god and
> >>>>religion. That we can't have morals without god and religion.
> >>>>
> >>>>They are short sighted and wrong of course!
> >>>
> >>>Okay. I'll play. Where do morals come from, exactly? Without a
> >>>transcendent source, how do we define them?
> >>
> >>How do we define them *with* a transcendent source? Or are transcendent
> >>sources right by definition? If so, why?
> >
> > Good question. Presumably, the alleged designer would have a lot better
> > idea how things are to run than the designed. Does that make sense?
>
> No. And even if he does, who's to say that he made rules for our benefit
> rather than his own?
>
> >>The existence of god does
> >>nothing to solve the problem of the source of morality. If god is the
> >>source, does that mean that tomorrow he could change the rules so that
> >>murder is good?
> >
> > What if *he*--never mind what I say--that he doesn't change the rules,
> > or that in fact, he himself doesn't change? Would that solve your
> > conundrum?
>
> No. Who's to say he's telling the truth? Who's to say that he ever said
> such a thing? And the changeability doesn't matter anyway. It's the
> arbitrariness. If it isn't arbitrary, then it has some objective basis.
> Either way, god can't be the source.
>
> >>You might say that he wouldn't do that, but what's the
> >>basis for saying so? Would it be wrong for him to change the rules? The
> >>paradox you must confront is that if god is the source of morality, then
> >>morality is indeed arbitrary, exactly what you accuse it of being in
> >>god's absence.
> >
> > Only if you assume that God will behave arbitrarily. If you tell me he
> > must because otherwise he's not omnipotent, that doesn't wash. Not
> > behaving arbitrarily is his choice (some would argue, his nature), and
> > if you mandate that he _must_ behave arbitrarily, then you have robbed
> > him of his choice, and hence his omnipotence by your fiat, not by
> > reality.
>
> No matter, I wasn't going to make that argument at all. But if god isn't
> behaving arbitrarily, then he must have some objective basis for his
> rules, in which case he's not the source.
>
> >>>If morals are merely a
> >>>socio-cultural phenomenom, a result of evolutionary forces on the human
> >>>species to further its success (i.e., we play nice and get along with
> >>>one another in a cooperative effort to enhance our survival and
> >>>reproductive success), what happens when the niche changes such that
> >>>now we should murder, maime and steal from one another in order to
> >>>succeed?
> >>
> >>If that were the case, then murder etc. would be moral by definition.
> >>But this is your strawman. Few people (nobody I know) are suggesting
> >>that selective value and morality are synonymous.
> >
> > I am not saying they are synonymous. I am simply echoing what I've
> > heard suggested here and elsewhere, that one (selective value) drives
> > the other. That doesn't land them on the same Thesaurus entry, but it
> > does tie them together. But perhaps you reject the connection. If so,
> > where, exactly does morality come from?
>
> That's not an easy question. And that's what I'm saying. You have an
> easy answer, but it's the wrong answer.
>
> >>>Enquiring minds want to know, ASAP. In fact, who are we to
> >>>fault certain African tribes when they slaughter one another, when in
> >>>fact, at the very base of their actions, lies a raw struggle for
> >>>survival and the passing on of genetic material? Ditto for Kosovo.
> >>
> >>Actually, I don't think that natural selection explains any of that
> >>directly. It may explain our natural propensities to kill other people;
> >>but in that case our morality is directly opposed to selection. And this
> >>is the more common position among biologists.
> >>
> >>You ask a real question, but your belief that you have the answer is
> >>false. I think that the basis of morality is an unverifiable assumption
> >>that I would call empathy, the idea that other people are in some way
> >>interchangeable with you. How we got that is unclear. Could be from
> >>evolution, could be from god. But however we got it, it's independent of
> >>its source.
> >
> > So you punt. Okay, but no points on the score board.
>
> Was this about points?
>
> >>>>In fact sometimes I think religion leads us to be inhuman to others.
> >>>
> >>>We should be careful not to confuse the transcendent moral code with
> >>>the often flawed interpretation and implementation thereof.
> >>
> >>A perfect out. If we do good, it's because of religion. If we do bad,
> >>it's because we didn't interpret the religion properly. Now there's an
> >>omphalos argument.
> >
> > A perfect out for human responsibility, the way you put it. I'm saying
> > humans are responsible for their actions regardless of the driving
> > force behind them.
>
> OK, fine. But what the previous poster was saying is that sometimes
> religious is the driving force.
>
> >>>The only
> >>>one (not thing or theory or belief system) at fault for inhumanity,
> >>>alas, is the human being himself. But is he truly at "fault" when he
> >>>himself is in charge of defining what constitutes a "fault" in the
> >>>first place? If we define "humanity" or the lack thereof based on the
> >>>1% of genetic material that separates us from our nearest relative, why
> >>>shouldn't we behave like him 99% of the time?
> >>
> >>Do you really see any force in this argument? I don't. It seems only a
> >>silly rhetorical game to me.
> >
> > Now _that_'s a perfect out, stage left, if I have ever seen one.
>
> No, that's the part where you explain why your claim makes sense.

That's where I point out I was making an argument from absurdity. Of
course I don't think it follows, but in the spirit of scientific
objectivism, where else would you point me for a difference between
human and inhuman?

> You
> seem to be saying that, assuming evolution, we should act like something
> a percentage of the time proportional to our degree of genetic
> similarity. So if I'm 73% genetically similar to a cow, then I should
> act like a cow 73% of the time. Explain to me why that would be.

After you explain why it isn't, which is why I have been asking all
along.

> And just who is it that's defining humanity based on the 1% that
> separates us from chimps?

Absent any other (transcendent) standard, how else would you define it?
Hint: the answer is related to the "morality's source" thingy.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Morality, humanity and the 1%
    ... Where do morals come from, ... >>nothing to solve the problem of the source of morality. ... If god is the ... arbitrariness. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Origin of Morality
    ... I'm saying several things: that this claim is not true, ... morality, given the perspective of an amoral origin for your sensation ... comes from god it won't allow you to expect eternal life for ... origin for your internal sense of morality as coming from God ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Leftover questions for Tony P.
    ... It seems to me from all that you have said that you approach> morality differently. ... to do it and right if God told you to do it. ... wrong for a human being to use his or her own moral judgement rather ... saying that it was moral for society to execute practicing homosexuals ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Leftover questions for Tony P.
    ... wanted to show that morality comes from God. ... My view of morality is that the Bible is right. ... to imply at the very least the ability to tell right from wrong, and you are explicitly saying you have no such ability. ... No, this is not accurate at all, Bill. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: what are Gods commandments?
    ... bad ones - is internal to God. ... external source of information, if you like, but not of morality. ... your saying that X is part of God's nature and to act contrary ... a nicely expressed version of what I have been saying to Andy. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)