Posted on 04/10/2009 4:43:45 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The End of Morality
...
Like the Marxist who claims that everything is determined by socio-economic forces (except for himslef who, of course, has no class interest), and the Freudian with his determinant sexual urges and primal psychological forces (except for himself who somehow developed rational psychological theories), the Darwinist is a man at war with himself. For he is engaged in mortal combat with rationality itself...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Cott Shop certainly came in with both guns blazing!
to his/her credit
“from the best of intentions but with mixed results”
Excellent point.
Funny in the county I'm in it's usually the District Attorney who takes care of that. On the other hand, Holy Spirit infuses Presence into everything.
“Actually, fighting for clean air and clean water is a very moral thing to do in the name of human health. “
Ah, here is where you stepped into the swamp and made my point. Fighting for clean air and water is a smart thing to do, it is a good long-term policy, but when you elevate it to a moral issue things get out of hand very quickly.
For example, since you mentioned improving ‘human health’ as a moral absolute, then we are obligated to pursue other items related to human health. If we must, as a moral absolute, take away people’s freedoms regarding clean air and water for the sake of human health, then we must also take away other freedoms for the sake of human health. We must shut down fast food restaurants and keep people from eating high-fat sugary foods.
This is the tactic that the Left has used to further their agenda. Once you call an issue a moral imperative then there is no arguing against it, it is a moral absolute so we must naturally, as moral people, seek to live up to this moral high standard.
Moral issues demand action by a society that perceives itself as moral. That’s why everyone has jumped on the bandwagon to demand their agenda be backed up by the power of the moral absolute — once elevated to an issue of morality, it can’t be argued against. No one can argue against clean air, clean water, improved health, etc.
Whether it is on the Left or the Right, the preaching of morality needs to be confined to actual issues of morality, not someone’s pet peeve turned into a new moral absolute. Cigarette smoking is a great example of this (and I don’t even smoke). Otherwise people become saturated with a heavy burden of guilt about non-moral issues and begin to reject morality outright.
Our culture has been so saturated with moral absolutes about everything around us that the younger generation has rejected morality outright and made it into whatever they want it to be. This is why many seem to live such amoral lives and have no anchor to traditional morality.
It would be nice to see religious claims held to the same standard.
[[Funny in the county I’m in it’s usually the District Attorney who takes care of that.]]
Lol- I shoulda said ‘convicts their hearts with God’s universal moral code’
[[”Universal” is not the same thing as “objective”—]]
Usually this is correct- universal could be subjective as well- however, the subjective comes from within person’s subjectiveness, while universal objective laws lie outside as THE standard by which everythign is measured- uggh- I’m exhausted today- did that make sense?
[[I think that when he refers to “objective” morality, he means a moral code that exists in the absolute, abstract somewhere, regardless of whether anybody follows it.]]
Yes, that’s what he meant- it’s the ‘ought’ that I spoke about- this ought is both objective and universal (not open to interpretation) An objective universal, again, lies outside of our opinions and is a constant.
[[And I’m not necessarily denying that it exists, just that it is impossible to tell it from an evolved moral code, since the only evidence we have is what people do.]]
I see why you’d think that- however, because we know good and evil exist, we know that a higher standard of judicial code also exists by which we measure all our own ‘personal moralities’ by. IF there were nothign but subjective codes to judge by, again, species would have destroyed themselves a long time ago- the philosophy discussion I spoke of talked about htis much more deeply than I can today-
[[I don’t think it’s possible to tell an evolved conscience from an implanted conscience, as the author seems to think it is.]]
I know hwat you’re saying, and why you are- I wish I remembered the link to that philosophy site- it addressed this very quesiton in detail- lemme see if I can find it tonight- it made a strong enough case for objective code that it was a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case made for it- it involved writings from philosophers such as Kant and Hume and several others I beleive if I remember right
That said, one critical thing in establishing a moral claim is consistency. I am passionately for the Right to Life, and that fight is hobbled when some Republicans advocate for higher allowances for various pollutants that adversely affect prenatal infants.
Correspondingly, it will help the pro-life cause for Right to Life advocates to be rightly seen as consistent via opposition to pollutants that adversely affect prenatal infants.
That is one of the ways in which being pro-environment is an intrinsic part of a very necessary holistic moral framework.
[[For example, since you mentioned improving ‘human health’ as a moral absolute, then we are obligated to pursue other items related to human health. If we must, as a moral absolute, take away people’s freedoms regarding clean air and water for the sake of human health, then we must also take away other freedoms for the sake of human health. We must shut down fast food restaurants and keep people from eating high-fat sugary foods.]]
Great point- this brings up the point of subjectivity quite well- How far do you go in determining the laws of morality? Who decides? Who gets set up as the ‘objective determiner’? Does everyone who contributes to polution even i nthe slightest hten get labelled ‘immoral’?
[[Whether it is on the Left or the Right, the preaching of morality needs to be confined to actual issues of morality, not someone’s pet peeve turned into a new moral absolute.]]
PRECISELY! Taking pet peeves and elevating them to some objective moral is a nasty tactic meant to suppress, NOT free as true objective morality does. True objective morality is based on Justice, not on personal predjudices. True objective morals protect judicially
[[Otherwise people become saturated with a heavy burden of guilt about non-moral issues and begin to reject morality outright.]]
Yup
[[This is why many seem to live such amoral lives and have no anchor to traditional morality.]]
I’ll just add that these folks also attack those with universal moral standards as being ‘rigid, unmoving, and uncaring’ because htey hold to universal standards instead of these folks ‘feel good’ personal prefferences. They are masters at instilling guilt on those hwo don’t hold to their subjective amoral lifestyle choices
It’s liek the Dems attackign hte southern governor who is refusing the government’s stimulus money- they are attackign him as ‘not carign about hte people’ and for ‘depriving the people of money they ‘deserve’- but hte reality is that the governor understands that acceptign hte money will impoverish FUTURE generatiosn much more drastically than it would ‘help’ present generation. The dems are in essence accusign hte governor of being ‘immoral’ for refusign hte money- It’s just sickening hte way universal moral standards have been so twisted and diluted and how htose that have done so can stand htere and accuse anyone that doesn’t beleive subjectively as they do, of being ‘immoral’
And how does Darwinism explain the existence/development of “an evolved conscience”?
I'll refer you to the David Brooks column referenced in the original article:
in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn’t just about competition. It’s also about cooperation within groups. Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.In other words, cooperation and kindness and some degree of altruism were successful survival strategies, so they got fixed in human nature. On an individual level we experience the result as a conscience. That's simplified, but the basic idea.
>>the existence of an evolved moral code.
The evolved moral code can be observed in the relationship between behavior and its effect upon social and biological fitness.
Taboos against incest, pedophilia, and homosexuality for example. In the animal world there are instincts against these behaviors.
Most normal humans/mammals have an instinct that tells them “Feces smells bad, so don’t eat it”. Some individuals do, however, lack that instinct - just as others lack the instincts against incest, pedophilia, and homosexual behavior.
Some may be born with instinctive dysfunction - while others LEARN and are TAUGHT to ignore those instincts.
Either way, the impact upon society is observably the same: Moral chaos and disintegration.
“in recent years there’s an increasing appreciation that evolution isn't’t just about competition.”
More like a creeping definition to include every possible situation under the rubric “evolution” when competition is, in fact, the heart and soul of evolution, as it provides the test of fitness for survival and thereby the fuel for natural selection.
“We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.”
Quite the opposite of Darwinism’s successful competitors.
Like it's a gradual process, but there's also moments of very fast evolution. It can be applied as an explanation to every successful behavior and idea from dating to religion, but don't tie it to eugenics. It explains every naturally occurring feature of life no matter how complex, but genetic algorithms based on the concept fail when tried. Its failed predictions of junk DNA, vestigial organs, a plethora of slowly advancing fossils spread throughout the strata, and simple basis for life with infinite plasticity, don't falsify the theory, but that somehow doesn't make it unfalsifiable.
There is just no end to the drivel you dig up.
I wonder if you can find a good piece on the Christian Evolution? Something that tells how Christianity has evolved from 12 people to the massive dissension that exists today would be a nice change of pace.
Go ahead. My point is that once everyone's infected, we can't tell whether the conscience is due to a universal infection or something else.
competition is, in fact, the heart and soul of evolution, as it provides the test of fitness for survival and thereby the fuel for natural selection. Sure, but some competition is best approached as a group. A successful football team isn't a bunch of individuals each attempting to maximize their own opportunities (unless you're Terrell Owens). Quite the opposite of Darwinism’s successful competitors.
So don't call it "Darwinism." Darwin didn't know everything. It's the anti-evolutionists who are hung up on the name "Darwin," not those who are actually studying the subject.
“Go ahead. My point is that once everyone’s infected, we can’t tell whether the conscience is due to a universal infection or something else.”
Huh? With that statement Darwinism (Biological Evolutionary Neo-Darwinistic Theory if that is more palatable) looking for source of conscience is then a waste of time if we can’t tell.
Members of a football team can choose to play and compete or not, animals can’t.
Slow but fast, true but false? Hmm, I think I’ll make a pot of coffee.
I spoke too quickly. What I meant was, if something is universal in humans, we won't be able to tell if it's the manifestation of some objective, extra-human reality (like the posted article seems to think) or something intrinsic to human beings. Certainly if it's the latter, we can look for some idea of how it got there.
Members of a football team can choose to play and compete or not, animals can’t.
Choice wasn't the point. The point was that you win some games by subordinating your individual interests to those of the group. Wolves don't hunt on a first-come, first-served basis. Water buffalo don't take an every-beast-for-himself approach to escaping a predator. Apes take care of their group's orphans. Successful competition isn't always a mano a mano proposition.
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.