Confronting Evolution's Racists Roots

You still think physical when it is about man's social interaction. We can think and feel, so the basics don't apply.

If 'nature' is all there is, how can the 'basics' of matter in motion not apply? What else is there? Naturalistic assumptions will not permit anything other than the basics of particles of matter and energy. Darwinism insists on thoroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes, doesn't it? Since naturalism assumes that everything in existence is the result of “natural” causes, that includes the chemical fizz you refer to as thoughts and feelings.

And ethical is what works best with man's interaction as a society.

Darwin purported to provide a naturalistic explanation for the emergence of morality. A claim of what is "best" assumes a moral standard by which society can be judged, which assumes the very thing in question. Morality cannot be explained simply by positing a prior moral rule since morality is what is supposed to be accounted for in the first place.

Cordially,

If 'nature' is all there is, how can the 'basics' of matter in motion not apply? What else is there?

It is possible that such behavior is genetic, as more sympathetic societies passed on their genes because they were more successful. I am talking about how the eugenicists think only of physical traits, trying to "improve" the race by weeding out what they think is undesirable. What they don't realize is that their very actions are undesirable according to Darwin.

Both Darwin and Christianity agree on the subject, in opposition to the eugenicists. No surprise since Darwin was originally Christian.

Morality cannot be explained simply by positing a prior moral rule since morality is what is supposed to be accounted for in the first place.

Concepts of morality grew from what worked best for a society. They kind of noticed that murder did not make for a cohesive society, so it gets outlawed, in tribal rules and later in religion when that developed beyond "Ogg, Sun God angry" and into a mechanism for enforcing societal rules.

It is possible that such behavior is genetic, as more sympathetic societies passed on their genes because they were more successful.

There are moral and immoral genes?

I am talking about how the eugenicists think only of physical traits, trying to "improve" the race by weeding out what they think is undesirable. What they don't realize is that their very actions are undesirable according to Darwin.

Ok. The actions of eugenicists are undesirable according to Darwin. So what? The actions of eugenicists are desirable according to eugenicists. Desirability is in the eye of the beholder. Desirability does not equal morality. If you're going to insist on completely naturalistic explanations based on material causes, then material causes are all you have. “The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist."

None of Darwins's biological principles can be translated into moral imperatives. What Darwin did with his completely naturalistic presuppositions is destroy the bridge he needed to cross to reach his moral judgments.

Both Darwin and Christianity agree on the subject, in opposition to the eugenicists. No surprise since Darwin was originally Christian.

Darwin could not remain thoroughly consistent with his own naturalistic premises, so he tacitly borrowed from the Christian world view with its transcendent moral standard to arrive at his moral judgments. He just never acknowledged the debt.

Concepts of morality grew from what worked best for a society.

Is there an obligation to do "what's best for a society"?

Cordially,

There are moral and immoral genes?

You're still not getting it. What we call moral is what makes a society more cohesive. We already know some base actions are in our DNA, like a baby naturally going for the nipple, so its possible that higher tendencies might be passed along.

The actions of eugenicists are undesirable according to Darwin. So what? The actions of eugenicists are desirable according to eugenicists.

But the context here is an attack on Darwin because of what the eugenicists believe. I think you've about admitted such attacks are unfair without realizing it.

Is there an obligation to do "what's best for a society"?

Does religion give such an obligation?

I will let the reader judge who is missing whose point, My point, reiterated in every post here, is that what you call morality is not morality at all, but merely descriptive accounts of environmental selection of certain behaviors that tend to conserve species, which tells you nothing about why things ought to be that way. Morality is about "ought", not about what merely "is". You also can't by reason alone derive ethical principle from a mere fact of nature.

You can't appeal to "higher tendencies" without justifying the leap because under a naturalistic Darwinian premise matter in motion is all you have to work with; concatenations of atoms and molecules are not directed or purposeful, and the "higher tendencies" is what you being asked to account for in the first place. You are limited by your premise to thouroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes.

But the context here is an attack on Darwin because of what the eugenicists believe. I think you've about admitted such attacks are unfair without realizing it.

No, here I simply accepted your premise for the sake of argument, not because I think it is entirely factual. My point is that Darwin had no foundation for any of his ethical judgments. By all accounts Darwin was personally a kindly man, but his naturalism destroys any possibility of a coherent account of morality.

.Does religion give such an obligation?

If you regard religion as man-made, i.e., having emerged along with man from the primordial slime, then no. In that case it would be just as arbitrary and subjective as your utilitarian ethic.

Cordially,

My point, reiterated in every post here, is that what you call morality is not morality at all, but merely descriptive accounts of environmental selection of certain behaviors that tend to conserve species

We are playing dictionary games. Call it what you want, but morality is a reflection of that.

You are limited by your premise to thouroughly naturalistic explanations based on material causes.

The causes are how we interact socially.

No, here I simply accepted your premise for the sake of argument, not because I think it is entirely factual. My point is that Darwin had no foundation for any of his ethical judgments.

The naturalistic view was his foundation. It is the same foundation that religious ethics and morality is built upon, although religions don't like to credit the source.

In that case it would be just as arbitrary and subjective as your utilitarian ethic.

It is arbitrary and subjective. Long ago some people founded a religion, including in it the societal mores of the time. They later wrote these mores as laws into the religion's founding documents. That is your arbitrary and subjective starting point.

Notice how the Bible doesn't condemn slavery? That's because slavery was normal and accepted in the society of the time. I don't think slavery is moral or ethical, but that's because I live in a post-slavery society. You do have the rare person who comes along and introduces new ideas on how society could function better than it did before, and they'll be accepted and perpetuated if they actually work in society. Jesus had some great ideas, and that's why Christianity lasted and prospered. Hitler had some ideas on how to make society better, but they didn't last very long. In fact, the more sympathetic societies smacked him down quite hard. Stalin and Lenin had some ideas too, and the USSR is gone while we're still here.

We are playing dictionary games. Call it what you want, but morality is a reflection of that.

Morality, as I am using the term, means a system of rules and propositions correctly describing how one should and should not act. Morality is prescriptive, not merely descriptive. It is objective, and by objective I mean that moral principles are valid, binding, and true independently of whether any of us think, feel, or believe them to be so. Morality says what ought to be, not merely what is.

The naturalistic view was his foundation. It is the same foundation that religious ethics and morality is built upon, although religions don't like to credit the source.

If what you are calling 'morality' resulted from natural biological selection, and nothing else, the logical implication of your presupposition is that moral beliefs are products of a process that is entirely independent of their truth and while they might happen to be true, you have no reason at all for thinking that they are. As there is no fact about the world that can vindicate the inescapable authority that moral judgments purport to have, you have, in terms of your own worldview no justification for endorsing ANY moral proposition at all. To do so, as Darwin did, and as you have done, is irrational.

Cordially,

I happen to believe Darwin was a racist. That does not imply anything about the truth or falsehood of his theories. Alfred Russel Wallace, who conceived natural selection independently, was an anti-racist. So I guess evolution is false because Darwin was a racist, and it is true because Wallace was anti-racist.

Think people.

We wouldn’t refute Jefferson by pointing out he owned slaves. We wouldn’t refute the theories of Newton by pointing out he was a religious crackpot. Say what you want about Darwin, but please, use some basic logic.

Morality says what ought to be, not merely what is.

What is best for the cohesiveness of a society is also an "ought to be" because just like religious morality (as derived from societal mores), it is also not universally followed -- see the current subject of eugenics.

As there is no fact about the world that can vindicate the inescapable authority that moral judgments purport to have, you have, in terms of your own worldview no justification for endorsing ANY moral proposition at all.

Why not? It's what has been learned over thousands of years of civilization. Religious morality is built upon this rock, so can offer no more validity other than someone telling you a deity said it is so.

Good can be taken to be what is best for the cohesiveness of a society only if it is antecedently the case that cohesiveness of a society is itself "good." You are still assuming what you must prove.

The reason that a naturalistic worldview offers no justification for endorsing ANY moral proposition at all is that you have to commit the naturalistic fallacy, or Hume's rule against deriving an "ought" from an "is" to do so. Reason, logic, and rationality can tell you what to do to achieve a particular end, but it cannot tell you what end you ought to achieve in the first place.

Cordially,

Reason, logic, and rationality can tell you what to do to achieve a particular end, but it cannot tell you what end you ought to achieve in the first place.

Quite right you are.

You have pointed out a fallacy that seems to escape the humanist/naturalist who denies the existence of absolute morality.

When it finally dawns on many of them they simply redouble their vigor, though I have encountered a few honest exceptions.

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.