Second Question

[John_Silver]

This will be the final inquiry for this week and I must say that I truly appreciate the respect you all have shown me. Sadly, more respect has been rendered in this forum than many of the Christian forums I visit. In fairness, I still stand with my brothers but admit that it gets very tiresome with all of the bickering back and forth "back home". That said, I came across this article yesterday and find that it frames my question more articulately than any attempt I could put forward at this point as my Ativan is kicking in. Please forgive the long post and feel free to take your time in responding I know it's a lot to pour through.

"There was another bit of step by step reasoning that I used to show, I think, very clearly that what evolution might describe couldn't possibly be what we understand morality to be. My basic point is this: what naturalists explain when they seek to explain morality in naturalistic, evolutionary terms is not morality at all. They are explaining something different. I get to that by asking a series of questions. Instead of looking backward, I look forward, and I ask a question of moral behavior like "Why ought anyone be unselfish in the future?" for example. The question came up yesterday regarding an observation that was done with chimpanzees. There was a group of chimpanzees which had, in a sense, punished one member for being selfish by withholding food from that member and therefore teaching that member moral behavior. Apparently, the moral rule that undergirded the lesson was that the other chimpanzee ought not be selfish. That's a moral statement and the question I'm going to ask is "Why ought the chimp (or human) not be selfish?" I'm looking for a justification there.

The answer is going to be that when we're selfish, it hurts the group. But you see, that answer isn't enough of an answer because that answer itself presumes another moral value that we ought to be concerned about the health of the group. So, I'm going to ask the question, "Why ought we be concerned about the health of the group?" The answer is going to be because if the groups don't survive, then the species doesn't survive. Then you can imagine the next question. "Why ought I care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?" You see, the problem with all of these responses that purport to be justifications or explanations for the moral rule, is that all of these things that are meant to explain the moral rule really depend themselves upon a moral rule before they can even be uttered. Therefore, it can't be the explanation of morality. When I ask the question "Why ought I be concerned with the species?", the next answer ends the series. The answer is, "I ought to be concerned with the species because if the species dies out, then I will not survive. If the species is in jeopardy, then my own personal self interests would be in jeopardy."

So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness. Why do we know that? Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all.

Morality is something altogether different. We may debate about all that moral views and understandings entail, but one thing we can all agree on, I think, is that when we are looking for a definition of morality, we know it isn't about selfishness. It is about not being selfish, just the opposite. That's why these explanations don't work. They either smuggle morality into the equation by describing the behavior that is meant to be explained by evolution so they depend upon morality to do the job, or else the descriptions and explanations end up being reduced to selfishness, which isn't what we're trying to explain. We're trying to explain why one ought not be selfish, not why one ought to be selfish."

The entire article can be found here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5237

How do you, as Atheists react to this reasoning? Is it even worth you time? I have heard this put forth a lot amongst my friends. But I would like fresh input from you for the sake of the article. Thanks again!

John

[Whitney]

I think the problem with the reasoning in the article is it wrongly assumes there is no room for selfishness in morality.  There really are very few ways we can look at why we ought to act morally without it going back to a selfish reason.  Almost all moral actions have some self benefit for being morally good and some harm to self that will occur from being morally bad. Ethical Egoism is a philosophical view of morality which explains how it is possible to have selfish desires yet ultimately work towards the good of the group.  I think Ethical Egoism combined with Social Contract theory offers a decent picture of why ethics exist and why we ought to care about them.

I think the main problem is that a lot of religious people look at morality as something spiritual that must have really deep meaning in order to be fully explained.  I think this is why they can have problems accepting natural explanations of morality and will wonder how morality can exist without a god.  In reality, morality is a survival mechanism for pack animals.  However, that doesn't mean we can't find poetic beauty within this natural need to help our fellow man.

[AlP]

I think the common atheist viewpoint on this issue is expressed well in the popular science book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. There is a link to the full text here. Quickly download it everyone! It might not last long. The chapters on altruism and game theory are particularly relevant.

[Whitney]

I think the common atheist viewpoint on this issue is expressed well in the popular science book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. There is a link to the full text here. Quickly download it everyone! It might not last long. The chapters on altruism and game theory are particularly relevant.

I need to finish reading it, I think I only got half way through the first chapter when I had to get started on holiday stuff.  

I'm always surprised when people know the penalties for violating copyright yet still do so in a very obvious manner in easy to find places.  However, it might be online for a while.  Someone uploaded the audio version of The Greatest Show on Earth to you tube and it is still there.  Maybe Dawkins is more concerned about people getting access to the material than making a few extra dollars (or, it may just not be worth the time to hunt down internet pirates).

[John_Silver]

I think the common atheist viewpoint on this issue is expressed well in the popular science book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. There is a link to the full text here. Quickly download it everyone! It might not last long. The chapters on altruism and game theory are particularly relevant.

Ohhh...nice! Snag Perhaps my selfish gene kicking in. I wonder if I will have to answer for stealing. Thanks, AIP. I'll give it a browse.

John

[AlP]

Ethically, I think Richard Dawkins would be pleased but his publisher would not. I don't care about the publisher. Muahahaha!

Edit: I just read Whitney's note on copyright. I have never uploaded copyrighted material and then linked it from this forum. I have however taken advantage of what other people have, at their own risk, uploaded.

[John_Silver]

I think Ethical Egoism combined with Social Contract theory offers a decent picture of why ethics exist and why we ought to care about them.

New terms to me. I'll look them up.

However, that doesn't mean we can't find poetic beauty within this natural need to help our fellow man.

I can't imagine a situation where anyone would disagree with that. If you don't mind I would like to quote you in the article. When the time comes to finish up writing, I'll ask you again. Thanks, Whitney.

John

[Recusant]

"Why ought I care about the health of the species and whether the species survives or not?"

I think this is where the author goes off track.  The "naturalistic explanation" for morality isn't about "oughts."  That really doesn't even come into it.  The explanation examines why there is an evolutionary advantage to the development of certain tendencies that seem to be basis for human morality.  It isn't about what any particular individual thinks they ought or ought not to do, but rather an underlying mechanism which has proven successful in the development of the species as a whole. So in fact, the survival of the species is enhanced by certain types of behavior.  Those who engage in that behavior do not necessarily do so because they consciously desire the survival of the species, but rather because they have inherited a tendency to behave in a certain way. This behavior is built upon and enhanced by their particular society.  We may call this "morality," but in fact it's rooted in the way the species has evolved.  The chimpanzee example is very appropriate here.  Do tigers, for instance, ever try to punish other tigers for being "selfish?" No, because tigers are not a social species.  Chimpanzees, like humans, are, however.  Why would a god see fit to endow chimpanzees with a form of "morality," while at the same time, letting tigers live happily "amoral" lives?

By the way, thanks A|P, for the link.  I haven't read any of Dawkins books, and I guess I should, so I'll check it out.

[John_Silver]

Do tigers, for instance, ever try to punish other tigers for being "selfish?" No, because tigers are not a social species.

And to that point, why do some species develop this inherent trait as a means for survival and others do not and yet still flourish without any of these moral traits (not tigers, per se, but others who are not social) if in fact it is this inherent morality that benefits us as a species? I understand that there may exist an argument that without the intervention of humankind many of the anti-social species might dwindle, but isn't the very reason these species are fewer in number precisely because of humankind?

What I am getting at is that Tigers and wolves, for instance, have existed (in one evolutionary form or another) having been quite naughty in their behavior for quite some time. So how is it that a sense of morality benefits us when it's done nothing of the sort for them whilst they yet flourish?

I am simply trying to get my head around your reply, cogent as it was. Not debate intended here, for the record. Thanks for your reply by the way.

John

[G-Roll]

if in fact it is this inherent morality that benefits us as a species?

The explanation examines why there is an evolutionary advantage to the development of certain tendencies that seem to be basis for human morality. It isn't about what any particular individual thinks they ought or ought not to do, but rather an underlying mechanism which has proven successful in the development of the species as a whole.

I have often wondered about thoughts like those. No attempt to debate either statement, just I seem to lack the concept of inherent morality.
I was raised by 2 parents, had a brother, and grandparents. So I would imagine that would make me a family pack animal. My “herd” grows as I attend school and make friends and learn.
Are my morals/ethics/moral beliefs (sorry for a lack of better word) not passed on by family, society, and the law of the land I live in? But if I were removed from a “normal sane society” like the one I was raised in(I like to think it normal and sane) would my entire view point not be different? If I were raised in a society or even family that did the exact opposite of what most would call moral, would I inherit immorality?
On a global scale do all humans demonstrate the same moral behaviour? In your (the reader) opinion is it moral for a husband to legally harm an adulterous wife? Is cannibalism moral? In some societies it is.
I am in a way torn on inherent morality. I feel in a way we all agree (with select few or a small minority) on what is over all in the grand scheme of things moral. Yet is it really passed down or taught, nurtured, or maybe it is some kind of evolutionary development over time. But mainly my question is, (if it were possible) if I was raised by wolves and had no contact with humans, would I act like a wolf or would some kind of human morality prevent me from doing... naughty wolf things...

And now this sleep deprived rant comes to a crashing halt.

[Recusant]

And to that point, why do some species develop this inherent trait as a means for survival and others do not and yet still flourish without any of these moral traits (not tigers, per se, but others who are not social) if in fact it is this inherent morality that benefits us as a species? I understand that there may exist an argument that without the intervention of humankind many of the anti-social species might dwindle, but isn't the very reason these species are fewer in number precisely because of humankind?

If a species evolves to successfully fill an ecological niche without at the same time evolving as a social species, why would there be any need for something that people might recognize as a rudimentary form of morality?  It would be unnecessary, and in fact could be detrimental to the species.  Tigers have evolved as solitary hunters, and have been quite successful in that role.  They have no need for any sort of cooperation, except during mating season.  Humans, on the other hand, would never have been successful without cooperation.  Perhaps I'm not getting the point of the above quoted paragraph.

One thing I would like to point out which may not have been that clear in my first response:  I do not believe there is any such thing as "inherent morality."  There do seem to be instinctive tendencies which serve as a sort of framework. These tendencies are built upon culturally and seem to be  the basis for what we understand as morality, but I think that without a cultural component, they do not qualify as morality.

 

What I am getting at is that Tigers and wolves, for instance, have existed (in one evolutionary form or another) having been quite naughty in their behavior for quite some time. So how is it that a sense of morality benefits us when it's done nothing of the sort for them whilst they yet flourish?

Well, it's interesting that you bring wolves into this discussion.  They are in fact, social creatures, and "altruistic" wolf behavior has been observed and well documented.  A sample comparison:  When the offspring of a tigress reach a certain age, she mercilessly chases them out of her territory.  From that point on, they are on their own.  On the other hand, younger members of a wolf pack quite frequently stay around for years after maturity to help with hunting and raising subsequent litters of pups.  Wolf "morality" means that these junior pack members forgo raising any offspring of their own until they set off pretty much voluntarily to seek a mate, establish a territory of their own, and found a new pack.  In some cases, they never do, but spend their entire lives as subordinates within the original pack.  Only the alpha pair within a pack have the "right" to breed and produce pups.  I suppose one might call this a type of morality, but in fact it's simply an evolved behavior which has proven successful for the species.

I understand that you would prefer to keep your threads from developing into debates.  However, there's a blurry line between earnest discussion and outright debate.  As long as it remains civil, I don't think straying into a more contentious dialog is a bad thing.  You're contribution to the content here is a refreshing change from some of the more dogmatic and antagonistic theists who visit this site.  Every once in a while, people such as yourself stop by, and I think I can safely presume to speak for pretty much all the members here when I say that your presence is very welcome.

______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

 

...If I were raised in a society or even family that did the exact opposite of what most would call moral, would I inherit immorality?

I think that you and I are more or less in agreement regarding the existence of such a thing as "inherent morality," G-Roll. I understand that you were addressing John Silver's post more than mine, but I'm going to go ahead and expound on my view, using your questions as my basis:

In my opinion, if you were to grow up in such a situation, you might feel an occasional twinge, but you would be fairly comfortable behaving in an "immoral" manner.  As you pointed out, there are examples for instance, in the cannibal tribes of New Guinea and other areas.  And though they seem to be more folklore than fact there are the stories of Christie Cleek and Sawney Bean from Scotland.  Once again, in my view, there is really no such thing as an "inherent morality," so much as an inherited instinctive tendency which favors behavior that has the potential of being formed into morality by the society one is born into. I think that a great flexibility in adapting to circumstances is part of the reason we've been so successful as a species, and that also probably explains why our instincts are not nearly so powerful as those found in other species.

But mainly my question is, (if it were possible) if I was raised by wolves and had no contact with humans, would I act like a wolf or would some kind of human morality prevent me from doing... naughty wolf things...

I think that you would quite happily "act like a wolf" in such a case.  What sort of "naughty wolf things" do wolves get up to after all?  They hunt to survive, as our own ancestors did.  Nothing particularly naughty about that.

[templeboy]

So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish.

The concept of the selfish gene as expounded by the likes of Dawkins goes a some way to explain this; much of what seems inexplicable altruistic behaviour is explained when we consider that evolution by natural selection is not, at its heart, about competition between species, races or individuals, it is about the propogation of lengths of DNA-genes- (which range from functional protein-coding genes through various regulatory sequences, inactive genes, telomeres and random junk sequences descended from viruses of aeons past.) Certainly this explains the love for ones childrens, ones brothers and sisters and cousins and aunts and uncles...but altruism on the level of the family is easy to explain anyway.

 To explain true altruism- maybe the pity and sorrow for a starving child- from an evolutionary point of view, well, its simply an extension of the altruism towards family members- natural selection favoring kindness towards ones family more generally as a consequence selects for kindness for all men and beasts. Consider a common explanation for the evolutionary tenaciousness of homosexuality: a factor (gene or hormone or whatever) which promotes fertility or promiscuity, which could obviously have evolutionary benefit, also promotes homosexuality. Another example; the same genes associated with tameness in animals are also associated with their pigmentation, hence domesticated/tame animals show a much broader range of colouring than their wild ancestors, over a wide range of mammals from rodents to dogs to livestock.

To say that altruism, kindness, is some sort of evolutionary accident or piggy-backer seems abhorrent to anyone who holds an evolutionary view on morality. I'm sure most HAF members would agree, it is not morality itself that is governed by evolution, it is only our understanding of morality- and watch the news, it shows every day that our understanding of morality is flawed, or at best not universally accepted. Dawkins speaks powerfully on the subject in The Devils Chaplain

Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresight - something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selection - and the gift of internalizing the very cosmos.

This is what it means to be human, and this is what it means to be a humanist. We move above the brutish Hobbsian "State of Nature," above Darwins "nature red in tooth and claw..." we are no longer at the mercy of a process that has no foresight, no sympathy....there is a new evolution which governs human behaviour, and it moves far faster and propogates far easier, because it is no longer about genes, it is about ideas, concepts, "memes...."

[G-Roll]

I think that you and I are more or less in agreement regarding the existence of such a thing as "inherent morality," G-Roll. I understand that you were addressing John Silver's post more than mine, but I'm going to go ahead and expound on my view, using your questions as my basis:

I apologize if I misaddressed your post. And I do thank you for expounding on your views. As I mentioned earlier Im in no way or even capable to debate the subject but I find it fascinating.

Once again, in my view, there is really no such thing as an "inherent morality," so much as an inherited instinctive tendency which favors behavior that has the potential of being formed into morality by the society one is born into. I think that a great flexibility in adapting to circumstances is part of the reason we've been so successful as a species, and that also probably explains why our instincts are not nearly so powerful as those found in other species.

Would you say that you believe in such a thing as morality? I only ask because (forgive me if I misuse the word)lately I find myself teetering on the edge of ethical nihilism. Im not sure if I do believe in such a thing as morals, but rather laws passed in a society for the greater good of that society, enforced and maintained by social pressures and fear. I feel that violence (one example of immoral behavior) must be a natural tendency. Thus why so many people are in prison for violent acts. And emotions like anger even exist.
After typing all that let me also type that I am by no means an anarchist. I like laws  

I think that you would quite happily "act like a wolf" in such a case. What sort of "naughty wolf things" do wolves get up to after all? They hunt to survive, as our own ancestors did. Nothing particularly naughty about that.

I agree. I only used wolves because they were mentioned earlier. I went with it because they are wild creatures that are not advanced tool using, philosophical, 2 legged beings. Wolves are not evil... Id go to say that humans most likely are a better example of an immoral creature.

[AlP]

Once again, in my view, there is really no such thing as an "inherent morality," so much as an inherited instinctive tendency which favors behavior that has the potential of being formed into morality by the society one is born into. I think that a great flexibility in adapting to circumstances is part of the reason we've been so successful as a species, and that also probably explains why our instincts are not nearly so powerful as those found in other species.

Would you say that you believe in such a thing as morality? I only ask because (forgive me if I misuse the word)lately I find myself teetering on the edge of ethical nihilism. Im not sure if I do believe in such a thing as morals, but rather laws passed in a society for the greater good of that society, enforced and maintained by social pressures and fear. I feel that violence (one example of immoral behavior) must be a natural tendency. Thus why so many people are in prison for violent acts. And emotions like anger even exist.
After typing all that let me also type that I am by no means an anarchist. I like laws  

My 2 cents... My view is that from a standpoint of complete detachment from society and humanity, nihilism is an accurate view of the world. Morality does not exist in any material sense. Actions have no meta-physical essence of right or wrong. Right and wrong are simply the judgements of the society that created them. My escape from nihilism hinges on the fact that I do not live detached from my humanity and my society. I accept that I am vulnerable to the moral ideas that society creates around me and compels me to follow. I take some consolation from realizing that I can change morality, primarily for myself and but also for society as a whole. Like I did just there. I nudged the Zeitgeist a small fraction of an inch!

[G-Roll]

My escape from nihilism hinges on the fact that I do not live detached from my humanity and my society. I accept that I am vulnerable to the moral ideas that society creates around me and compels me to follow. I take some consolation from realizing that I can change morality, primarily for myself and but also for society as a whole.

Interesting.
The acceptance of the moral ideas created by our society is what makes one "non-nihilists?" Forgive me if I have your statement wrong. But even by cooperating doesnt mean that you believe in a such thing as morals. The ideas you are made to follow... wouldnt they be laws? And laws are followed by everyone for the greater good. But then again I suppose most laws are formed from some kind of moral standpoint. bah i just confused myself again  
The acceptance that I am vulnerable to the moral ideas that society creates around me and compels me to follow almost sounds like an atheists journey. Lol. I dunno it just reminded me of how I felt the first time I admitted to not believing in a god.
Sorry that I have driven this thread from its original post.