Posted on 11/06/2003 7:34:45 PM PST by Heartlander
Consciousness cannot evolve? Sounds like something you'd like to prove someday.
Perhaps you recall that story a year or so ago, where a genetic study found that "Might Makes Right" practitioner Ghengis Khan's family tree extended across -- was it millions? -- of living humans. Surely that's a moral triumph, if you want to define morality in terms of scientifically-observable evolutionary behavior.I'd never heard of that! I guess for Mongolians, Ghengis Khan was truly the Father of the Country.
He was successful on his terms, that's for sure. But surely you understand that evolution only describes behavior, not prescribes behavior? You know - knowing the law of gravity doesn't mean it's immoral to try to slip the surly bonds of Earth, etc.? That's one point.
The second point is, again, that morality refers to something more than a self-serving evaluation of our actions. When we ask, "what's the best moral code?", we're asking for something that we can say is objective, or universally true in some sense. That's the nature of morality as a concept. And that's why I keep coming back to the question: "What kind of world would the proposed action produce if it were adopted as a universal code by everybody?"
If you like the kind of world that a consistent, universal application of the code would produce, then you can say it's a moral act, and you should feel good about doing it. If it leads to a vicious cycle, or if the kind of prosperous civilization that produced you could never have gotten off the ground to begin with, then it's an immoral act and you shouldn't do it even if you'll prosper from it. See? you can indeed prosper directly from acts that are nevertheless wrong.
A woman forgets to pick up a bag of money & walks away. Do I bother to ask myself if I'll profit from taking the bag of money? Of course not! That's obvious. The nagging question is, "is it moral to take the bag?" IOW, I'm asking myself, "should I feel justified or should I feel guilty if I take the bag?" That's a very different question than would I profit by taking the bag. Mere profit is not what a morality based on self-interest is all about.
Our moral sense is built largely on empathy. And I think that putting yourself in the other person's shoes to see if you feel they're getting a fair shake by your proposed action is a good real-world alternative to a drawn-out analysis of the long-term consequences as we're doing here. So if I saw the woman leave her bag, I'd never take the bag. I'd immediately feel I was stealing it, because I've forgotten things before, and it seems unreasonable that I should risk having my things swiped just because I had a momentary lapse.
But if I came across a bag of money sitting there with nobody around, then it's a bit murkier. Personally I'd still try to find its rightful owner: Nothing reinforces your view of your fellow man like coming back to the restaurant 2 days later to find that someone turned in your bag o' cash in hopes that you'd come back for it. That kind of thing happens in Seattle, though I doubt it'd ever happen in Detroit, where I grew up. But I don't think it's even always illegal to take it in that scenario, is it?
Anyway you get the idea. Moral questions are based on what the world would be like if everyone did it. IMO.
I think the trend toward democracy comes as a result of the success of it in Western culture -- it's attractive because it's successful. But it's important to note how very narrow is the margin between liberty and chaos, on one side; or between liberty and tyranny on the other. The only way that balance is kept, is if the people in the society are profoundly moral; and, what's more, moral in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term.I agree that a society's moral foundation is, well, foundational. But I think the more important foundation is a respect for rationality and the individual nature of rights & responsibilities - and the ability to think in terms of principles.Thus, we see chaos in African "democracies," because the people have no foundation. And we saw tyranny in Kaiser- and Fuhrer-led Germany, because the Germans were instilled with a love for it.
And that's really the key: we're where we are because of the supernatural (specifically, Christian beliefs), not because of some set of mysterious physical laws that are not observable anywhere in nature.
Funny you should mention the African democracies, etc. I'm currently reading the Voyage of the Beagle, and as Darwin was traipsing thru Argentina, Uruguay, & Paraguay, he described how dangerous & unstable they were. The Spaniards were in a long-term war with the natives, and I gather there were constant revolutions & coups within the Spanish colonial governments as well. At one point Darwin observed:
18th and 19th. -- We continued slowly to sail down the noble stream: the current helped us but little. We met, during our descent, very few vessels. One of the best gifts of nature, in so grand a channel of communication, seems here wilfully thrown away -- a river in which ships might navigate from a temperate country, as surprisingly abundant in certain productions as destitute of others, to another possessing a tropical climate, and a soil which, according to the best of judges, M. Bonpland, is perhaps unequalled in fertility in any part of the world. How different would have been the aspect of this river if English colonists had by good fortune first sailed up the Plata! What noble towns would now have occupied its shores! Till the death of Francia, the Dictator of Paraguay, these two countries must remain distinct, as if placed on opposite sides of the globe. And when the old bloody-minded tyrant is gone to his long account, Paraguay will be torn by revolutions, violent in proportion to the previous unnatural calm. That country will have to learn, like every other South American state, that a republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.October 20th. -- Being arrived at the mouth of the Parana, and as I was very anxious to reach Buenos Ayres, I went on shore at Las Conchas, with the intention of riding there. Upon landing, I found to my great surprise that I was to a certain degree a prisoner. A violent revolution having broken out, all the ports were laid under an embargo. I could not return to my vessel, and as for going by land to the city, it was out of the question. After a long conversation with the commandant, I obtained permission to go the next day to General Rolor, who commanded a division of the rebels on this side the capital. In the morning I rode to the encampment. The general, officers, and soldiers, all appeared, and I believe really were, great villains. ...
This revolution was supported by scarcely any pretext of grievances: but in a state which, in the course of nine months (from February to October, 1820), underwent fifteen changes in its government -- each governor, according to the constitution, being elected for three years -- it would be very unreasonable to ask for pretexts. ...
I should've kept reading, would've saved me some typing... :-)
I'm surprised I even found that word in the dictionary!
If consciousness evolved from mindlessness, it is an illusion.That's just an assertion, of course. You still haven't shown why it should be true. I think you're committing the fallacy of composition.
Oxygen is flammable. Hydrogen is explosive. Paste them together to make water. Is water flammable or is it explosive or both or neither? (How could it possibly be neither?)
The quoted statement implies that whether we're really alive or pseudo-animated slime depends entirely upon factors of whence we came and not at all upon what we are.
Suppose someone shows you a car you've never seen before. It's fast, nimble, a hoot to drive, and has great creature comforts. In fact it has everything most people like in a car. Asked what you think of it, you say, "I can't tell you if it's good or not. You haven't said if it was made in the USA."
LOL -- pretty much you say all of the characters one by one. I took my screen name from the addressing we used for computer printouts, back in the days when mainframes had a centralized printer.... Lotsa folks shorten it to "r9," which I suppose is close enough to "asinine" to make them happy. ;-)
For the record, I don't disagree with anything you've said. At issue here is the basis for the moral judgements you've been making -- are they really "true and universal," or are you merely describing one moral choice among many? So I'm going to challenge you, first to identify the assumptions you're making, and then to prove that they're valid assumptions. And, if valid, I'll ask you to demonstrate that they're universal -- which I take to be a different way of saying that no other morality is correct. You can't simply provide a definition (as you've done here, in several places), and expect me to accept it. I'm betting you can't do it without reference to some supernatural agent.
He was successful on his terms, that's for sure. But surely you understand that evolution only describes behavior, not prescribes behavior? You know - knowing the law of gravity doesn't mean it's immoral to try to slip the surly bonds of Earth, etc.? That's one point.
You're right, to a point. Yes, evolution describes behavior, and we're of course talking about how to prescribe behavior. But the question remains (and applies to the rest of your post): if Ghengis Khan acts according to the "evolutionary behavior" he sees modeled throughout nature, are his actions right or wrong -- moral or immoral?
That depends, of course, on what the goal of moral behavior is supposed to be. If one rejects the idea that moral behavior can be defined via revelation, then (as I said to general_re, above) a good materialist is going to have to define moral goals and evaluations based on what he sees. As odious as they are to us, the principles of Social Darwinism have the unfortunate advantage of being scientifically demonstrable. Specifically, I can observe that "evolutionary behavior" such as "might makes right" is quite viable in nature, and the lesson seems to extend to humans -- at least, to people like Ghengis Khan.
The second point is, again, that morality refers to something more than a self-serving evaluation of our actions. When we ask, "what's the best moral code?", we're asking for something that we can say is objective, or universally true in some sense. That's the nature of morality as a concept.
It's fine for you to state this, but if it's truly objective you should be able to produce an objective proof -- one that can somehow explain away the fact that Ghengis Khan was wrong, despite the fact that he died old, rich, happy, and with that enormous genetic legacy.
And that's why I keep coming back to the question: "What kind of world would the proposed action produce if it were adopted as a universal code by everybody?"
First off, you're assuming that that's a proper way to look at morality. Is it not just as reasonable to look at Ghengis Khan's "administration," and claim that it's just and proper for there to be different sets of rules for the different classes in society?
...You're right, to a point. Yes, evolution describes behavior, and we're of course talking about how to prescribe behavior. But the question remains (and applies to the rest of your post): if Ghengis Khan acts according to the "evolutionary behavior" he sees modeled throughout nature, are his actions right or wrong -- moral or immoral?
Yes, but we're the only species within nature that is able to see, plan, & decide beyond the moment. So questions of morality (as opposed to immediate individual profit) can not really even occur to any other species in nature. So looking to the rest of nature doesn't help us much, except we could note that the more intelligent a species is, the more (and more sophisticated) cooperation we see. (See for instance Matt Ridley's enjoyable "The Origins of Virtue")
Now for the nub of your argument:
For the record, I don't disagree with anything you've said. At issue here is the basis for the moral judgements you've been making -- are they really "true and universal," or are you merely describing one moral choice among many? So I'm going to challenge you, first to identify the assumptions you're making, and then to prove that they're valid assumptions. And, if valid, I'll ask you to demonstrate that they're universal -- which I take to be a different way of saying that no other morality is correct. You can't simply provide a definition (as you've done here, in several places), and expect me to accept it. I'm betting you can't do it without reference to some supernatural agent.
I guess I take my definition of what morality is as axiomatic. I can't conceive of someone worrying about whether they're about to do the "right" thing - i.e. something that won't make them feeling guilty even if they profit from the act - unless they're thinking about what principle the proposed act represents. IOW, the very question "would this be moral?" presupposes a concern for principles. I doubt very much that a person who never asks himself "is the is the right thing to do?" has ever considered principles as such.
As I mentioned before, I think our natural moral sense is based on empathy, which is ingrained in us because it provides a quick, rule-of-thumb snap judgement we can use in our day-to-day lives, as an alternative to a more rigorous analysis.
So I say the question of morality is necessarily a quest for a universal (or "objective" - I'm trying to say the opposite of self-serving - "consistent"?) principle, as opposed to a quest for the most immediately profitable action. They're two separate issues by their nature, even though their goals are ultimately selfish.
You're saying this is all just an assertion on my part. But can you give me an example of someone who worries whether a proposed profitable action is the right thing to do, where this "right thing to do" does not refer to a consistent principle of some kind?
As for a truly universally correct moral code, I think it's true that you can't derive objective values from facts - purely deductively.
What I see when I think of this quest is more of a hypothetico-deductive process similar to the scientific process. It's an ongoing process that uses personal experience & historical examples to generate general theories of human behavior, and deduction back to your idea of what a better morality should look like. So you can approach true objectivity the more you know about what life is truly like under many alternatives.
I believe there is one best moral code (or one family of similar codes), because humans are basically the same in our mental capacities. Now, there are many variations on a theme, for instance within the free market democracies you have America's free-wheeling culture vs. Singapore's enforced politeness.
I suspect that if you examine different cultures, you'll eventually find that there are subtle historical reasons why they do some things differently than we do. IIRC, Singapore has several ethnic groups that historically were antagonistic towards each other. Maybe Singapore's enforced politeness is the best they can do under the circumstances. Maybe not. But I doubt very much that Singaporeans (who are relatively cosmopolitan) would voluntarily vote in Communism or a hard fascism. Or if they did, they'd soon regret it.
So in one sense I have to concede that it's impossible to prove deductively that one moral code is objectively better than another. In that sense it's like a scientific theory. A moral code could only be definitively proven wrong - when it fails the societies that follow it.
On the flip side: If the material world can't give us any guidance towards the best moral code, then how is an appeal to a mythical supernatural person any different than picking a moral code at random & everybody simply deciding to stick to that one out of consistency? What makes one revelation-inspired moral code any better than the one from the next religion?
All well and good, and who knows? You may even be right. The problem is, none of that serves the creationist's purpose of invalidating the theory of evolution. Even if trying to put the theory itself into action - and it's not at all clear that that's even a meaningful statement at this point - inevitably leads to gay marriage, infanticide, communism, or whatever one's particular bugaboo happens to be, that does not mean that the theory is therefore false or incorrect.
And that's generally the object of such exercises. "Evolution, if true, would cause X, Y, and Z. Anyone with half-a-brain can see that X, Y, and Z are horrible, horrible things. Therefore, in order to avoid X, Y, and Z, evolution must be false and incorrect." This is usually classed as argument by appeal to the consequences, but it's basically not much more than falsification by fiat - we simply declare it to be non-existent because we don't like it.
It's a shame, though, that this technique isn't generally valid, when you think about it - there are a whole host of things in this world that I don't like, yet that persist in existing anyway, much to my annoyance. ;)
So are the objects "evil?" Probably not, but they act upon us as if they, and not their user, were evil.
Perhaps. But that's purely a matter of perception on the part of the viewer - show a picture of an iron maiden to an innocent child, and you'll engender no such reaction. His parents will likely react as you predict, but that's because they understand what the child does not - the context of what the thing was used for by someone. You may walk through museums of medieval torture devices from time to time, and while your fellow viewers may react with distaste, it's rather rare that any of them will run screaming for the exits - they understand what the devices were used for, but they also understand that they themselves are in no immediate danger from them, because the users of those devices are missing.
Dernavich's question is: Why does Case "B" have moral implications, whereas Case "A" does not?
Because we assign moral implications to one, but not the other. The "moral implications" are essentially meaningless, however, no matter where you think they come from, unless there is someone to put them into practice. What good does it do to say that X is immoral if nobody agrees with you and nobody abides by that?
The reason why we label Ghengis Khan as an evil man is because of empathy, None of us would want to be on the receiving end in one of the areas he conquered and we can feel for the ones who were.
When you bring the Bible into this discussion, you bring in God, and His will. God's will is, in fact, a logical necessity for the sort of moral code we espouse. Lacking God, we lack any reason to condemn Ghengis Khan; indeed, we can only admire him.
The question is wrong in fact the opposite should be asked. Using the Bible as an example how can Christians/Jews claim Ghengis Khan was evil considering that there are many "Heroes" in the Bible who in terms of evil deeds are the equal of or worse than Ghengis Khan. Moses for example fits into that category, Just read of his exploits as written down in the Bible.
The only differences between Moses and Khan was Moses was killing and raping in the name of Judeo-Christian God where as Khan wasn't.
Now if after we took over Iraq George Bush ordered our troops to kill everybody including women and children but keep alive the virgin girls to do with what you will. I would assume hopefully the vast majority of people today would be appalled at such an order. It can't be because of Biblical reasons because in the Bible that is condoned because Moses gave that very order in Numbers 31:17 with even God getting some of the "Booty".
I think the trend toward democracy comes as a result of the success of it in Western culture -- it's attractive because it's successful. But it's important to note how very narrow is the margin between liberty and chaos, on one side; or between liberty and tyranny on the other. The only way that balance is kept, is if the people in the society are profoundly moral; and, what's more, moral in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term.
Our Democracy/Republic form of government is not founded on Christianity, There are no Democracies/Republics in the bible what's so ever.
Thus, we see chaos in African "democracies," because the people have no foundation. And we saw tyranny in Kaiser- and Fuhrer-led Germany, because the Germans were instilled with a love for it. And that's really the key: we're where we are because of the supernatural (specifically, Christian beliefs), not because of some set of mysterious physical laws that are not observable anywhere in nature.
And at the same time we see relative peace and prosperity in a Democratic but non-Christian modern day Japan yet there are all kinds of atrocities in the heavily foundation Christian Latin America countries and of course medevil/dark ages Europe under the church wasn't exactly a wonderful place to live so there is no correlation between the Religiousness of a country/area and morality of such.
Same with people, If being moral requires being religious than why do Atheist make up way less than 1% of the prision population?
Jenny,
If consciousness; evolved from, or is the result of mindlessness, ‘you’ have become the fallacy of composition.
Our President is looking at everything from a relatively short timescale and has concluded that if these ‘evil’ actions are allowed to continue – it will destroy our values and moral fiber…
Values and moral fiber?
If you have concluded that Christians are evil base on ‘one’ Biblical reference, what should we do? Well, you could reference more in order to justify Christian persecution and tell the President…
If your morality comes from science ‘alone’ you might have a problem. I don’t think our President hears these same voices from science so please tell me what you think science tells you…
You do know what the fallacy of composition is, don't you?Jenny,
If consciousness; evolved from, or is the result of mindlessness, ‘you’ have become the fallacy of composition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.