morality within evolution

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, PNG!

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

That was quite a long reading Juan, i guess i have missed that part, and i was a lil bit.. high vs low, to tell you the truth elephants were shagging in my head while was writing that stuff ;

understandable.

Ok now, 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.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Of course, I can't help but think maybe this is asking an incorrect question. I ask myself that a lot with my questions.
For the sake of discussion, let's take a minute with this. Are you at all familiar with an author named Ayn Rand, who wrote a couple of books, Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. She promoted a philosophy of selfishness called "objectivism." Her books extolled the virtues of selfishness. I mean, let's face it, if you don't look out for yourself, who will? Right?

Morality, as I see it, extends beyond that. Love, in Rand's world, seemed to me cold, mechanical, animal. The real world isn't like that. A mother loves her child so much that she would do anything to protect it, even at the cost of her own life. THAT, is love. That is reaching beyond self. That is seeking the greater good for the benefit of the group. In so doing, the individual has an enhanced opportunity to thrive.

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 i know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness.

Is self interest, self protection and self improvement selfish? Even if they are, is selfish "evil" or "wrong" in this context? How can you help others if you yourself need help? This is why I wonder if you may not be asking an incorrect question. Selfish is not evil when it is in the proper context. Otherwise, infants are born evil, and I will argue against that to my dying breath.

Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite.

OK, now I'm getting a better picture. Keep in mind your words "moral rules." Written morality, codified law, whether religious or secular, is an extension of morality. Law is not morality. That is, law may have a basis and beginning in morality, but law is not automatically moral because of that connection. Initially it may have been promoted that way, in the power chase 3 or 4 thousand years ago, but a law is not inherently moral now. In short, the formal morality you are confusing is enforced morality, of a kind that reaches beyond what we have been discussing (at least in this physical realm).

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.

I'm not sure I follow. How does this relate then, with love, the genuine "look out for those you care about" kind.

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.

Actually, to this point, evolution proper hasn't really even entered the picture. Several sciences, religions and histories have. And a little "thinking outside of the box" to draw corresponding parallels, which means supposition. That is why I want to in the next couple of days bring in some of the animal morality stuff to compare notes with.

Morality is something altogether different. I may debate about all that moral views, 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.

Conceptually, you are right. That is the "propaganda" as it were, promoted by religion. But in the end it is for the benefit of the individual. Selfishness, by definition.

Saints are saints, not because it is the right thing to do, but because they want to selfishly get themselves into heaven, whatever they perceive that to be.

That's why these explanations don't work.

If what Vaj says has merit, then words (explanations) fall short. They are an artifact of language. However, what other realistic means do we have to convey knowledge, especially when others like myself have no other way to develop that knowledge. In the end, you and Vaj both are correct. It is in the doing. For now, this is a working study using the path of linguistic knowledge.

They either smuggle morality into the balance by describing the behavior that is meant to be explained by evolution so they depend upon morality to do the job.

Else the descriptions and explanations end up being reduced to selfishness, which isn't what im trying to explain. I'm trying to explain why one ought not be selfish, not why one ought to be selfish.

Again, selfishness is not inherently evil. It could be called "the will to survive." Without it, we would not have reached the point we have as a species. Selfishness is contrary to morality when it is the only driving factor at the expense of love.

Does this help?

[juantoo3]

As an afterthought:

"Selfishness is contrary to morality when it is the only driving factor at the expense of love."

Perhaps PNG has hit onto something here. How closely does selfishness (will to survive) equate with "animal nature?" And how closely does love equate with "transcendence?" And as Luna pointed out, do humans operate in the tension between selfishness and love? Where does morality figure into that tension?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Later, Carter also proposed the Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP), which states that the Universe had to bring humanity into being. This version is much more teleological, if not theological, and is of a highly speculative nature. Nonetheless, Carter had scientific reasons to propose it. The definition of the SAP) is as follows:

“Strong Anthropic Principle (SAP): the Universe must have those properties which allow life to develop within it at some stage in it’s history.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, p. 21)

In addition to the WAP and SAP, there are the Participatory and Final Anthropic Principles. The Participatory Anthropic Principle states not only that the Universe had to develop humanity (or some other intelligent, information-gathering life form) but that we are necessary to it’s existence, as it takes an intelligent observer to collapse the Universe’s waves and probabilities from superposition into relatively concrete reality. The Final Anthropic Principle states that once the Universe has brought intelligence into being, it will never die out. These two are also very speculative.


the interested reader is directed here for more thorough information:
http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwillia...ple_index.html

Dear Vajradhara,
I just wanted to take a minute to thank you for your reply. Very interesting; so is Carter and physicist or a philosopher, or perhaps there is not much difference these days? I do like his audacity! The topic of anthropocentrism and the importance of humans in the grand scheme of things is one I would like to explore in another thread, perhaps, when I return. I don't have time for deep reflection on this idea now (my trip still looms--you'd think I was moving to Africa!), but I could not help but think of the old question: if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it...
cheers!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I am not fluent in Tao, not used to thinking in those terms, so that's why I avoid reflecting on Tao and Chi questions.

Gotta add, I don't know much about zen either, but that hasn't stopped me from trying to fold a bit of it into my thinking!

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Oh now, I would think a former poultry geneticist would enjoy such a ride!

I'll enjoy it, Juan ! There is no doubt in my mind. You know, I never said no in my whole life to an interesting challange. I'm to stubborn for that.

I need however, some time to summarize all the posts on this thread to see what we have managed to find till now and where I should look in the future.

Do you agree ?

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

I need however, some time to summarize all the posts on this thread to see what we have managed to find till now and where I should look in the future.

Do you agree ?

Oh, by all means. If you find something you believe would contribute to this discussion, pass it along to us.

[alexa]

What a bout a little joke, just to relax for a moment ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/biologyjokes.html

This one is called : Do you believe in evolution ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/imagesb/bushorchimp.jpg

I hope you are not a fun of Bush !

Regards.

Alexa

[PersonaNonGrata]

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/WhoWas.html

this ones nice reading)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

Originally Posted by alexa

What a bout a little joke, just to relax for a moment ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/biologyjokes.html

This one is called : Do you believe in evolution ?

http://www.juliantrubin.com/imagesb/bushorchimp.jpg

I hope you are not a fun of Bush !

Funny! I guess I am not so much a fan of Bush, as much as I don't care for Kerry!

I spent a little time looking today. Much more difficult material than before. I'll put something together soon, but it's time for a break.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, PNG!

Originally Posted by PersonaNonGrata

http://www.aboutdarwin.com/darwin/WhoWas.html

this ones nice reading)

Yes, it was. Of course, it left me wondering, what does a biography page about Darwin have to do with the subject of this thread? I saw nothing pertaining to morality. Did I overlook something?

May I presume that your problem with selfishness has been resolved, since you have nothing further to add to that part of the discussion? I was kinda hoping for your input concerning how love figured into the equation, that is, if you can refrain from the self-participatory kind for the duration of the discussion...

[PersonaNonGrata]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, PNG!
Yes, it was. Of course, it left me wondering, what does a biography page about Darwin have to do with the subject of this thread? I saw nothing pertaining to morality. Did I overlook something?

get a life juan ;

[juantoo3]

Get a clue, personanongrata.

[PersonaNonGrata]

got a wee-wee )
ewww the levels dropping, got a run.. what do you look like?

[alexa]

Hi Juan,

I have found an article about Virtuous conduct- Morality. There is no name for the author. Can you take a look at it and tell me if it's pertinent for this thread, please ?

http://houstonbuddhist.freeservers.c...morality3.html

I think we'll need the help of Vajradhara for the buddhist part.

Regards,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa and all!

Yes, your article looks like it is a good one. I only glanced at it, so I will give you an opportunity to pull out the pieces you might like to discuss.

I found this in my search. It is from another forum or newsgroup. I was searching to see if a certain researcher I like (Glenn R. Morton) had anything to say in this matter of morality as it relates to evolution. I didn't find what I was looking for from Mr. Morton, but a portion of this quote cited here was a response to something Mr. Morton had said earlier. So far, it is the closest discussion to what I have been trying to explore that I have seen. Take a look, and tell me what you think.

2. A second critical point is to emphasize the distinction between
ONTOLOGY (i.e., what is objectively the case, independently of our beliefs
and knowledge-claims) and EPISTEMOLOGY (i.e., what we can "demonstrate" that
we know).
A Christian ethicist doesn't (or at least shouldn't) claim that she
can epistemically PROVE the existence of an objective, universal moral code.
Such an approach makes the ontological implications of a philosophical
system dependent upon one's epistemological limits. Christian theism offers
a transcendent and objective ontological ground for morality, even if
arguing for it must "pass through" our epistemology. One can, however,
understand the LOGICAL connection between such an existing transcendent and
communicating God and a universal morality to which all are held accountable
(regardless of their acceptance or rejection).
But to say, as Russell Stewart does, that "since Christian morality
is as subjective as any other [morality], it is just as non-applicable"
fails to recognize this critical distinction between ontology and
epistemology. My ability to "demonstrate" the TRUTH of the Christian system
undoubtedly has a "subjective" component--after all, I am a human "subject"
who reasons! But this fact does not at all make "Christian morality as
subjective as any other." ONTOLOGICALLY, the sufficient logical connection
exists between a transcendent, revealer God and a transcendent and universal
moral obligation. But the ONTOLOGICAL connection between an atheistic
philosophy and having sufficient grounds for universal moral obligation
cannot be found.
This, by the way, is where Peter Grice goes wrong in his little
dialogue between the theist and atheist: (just an excerpt)

Monotheist: I can prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction, since I
believe in God, and can refer all moral questions to Him as
the objective, transcendent moral standard - will you grant
me this?

Atheist: Yes of course, but now it's my turn! I can also prove right
and wrong to my own satisfaction,..."

The monotheist does not (or should not) say or imply that, SINCE the
God-believer can "prove right and wrong to my own satisfaction," all moral
questions have an "objective, transcendent moral standard." This
mistakingly makes the ontological ground of morality dependent upon one's
subjective state and epistemic capabilities.


3. Just because an individual can, given a philosophical system,
provide sufficient personal reasons for not e.g. killing his neighbor does
not mean that the philosophical system offers a logical ground for universal
morality. Just because an individual IMPUTES reasons for morality to a
philosophical system does not mean that a LOGICAL connection is present. To
be more specific: to give an evolutionary basis for a moral act (e.g. not
killing your neighbor), as Glen Morton does by scenario, does NOT mean that
universal morality has been given an evolutionary and sufficient basis.
Glen Morton's "demonstration" "from the evolutionary worldview why
killing fellow humans is wrong" is flawed at several points, including this
one. Even IF he "demonstrated" that evolutionary considerations would
prevent killing SOME individuals--which is MAXIMALLY what he did--he did not
demonstrate anything about the more significant and relevant question of
whether killing itself is morally "right" or "wrong." In part, the problem
is that EVEN IF evolution DID operate in this limited way, it still cannot
say anything about what behavior OUGHT or OUGHT NOT to occur. As a
consequence, it cannot LOGICALLY condemn any behavior. (With God gone, are
we to believe that our behavior now becomes accountable to the "evolutionary
SCHEME of things"?) (Cf Morton's statement: "Without such a selective
advantage, murder provides no benefit in the evolutionary scheme of things.")
Furthermore, to posit that the "scheme" of evolution is to safeguard
one's associated gene pool seems not only extremely tenuous, it misses a key
point. [Note Glen Morton's statement: "[S]tatistics show that you are more
likely to kill members of your family than strangers. Thus by killing a
member of your family, you are eliminating your own genes from the gene
pool. Thus assuming your genes are
the fittest, you with your gun have eliminated those fit genes."]
It is tenuous because it posits a "scheme" to evolution in the first
place. Why should EVOLUTION care about what genes survive? And the key
point that is missed is that naturalistic evolution, even if true, can only
describe in the long run of things why some genes survive; it can't be
logically used, E.O. Wilson notwithstanding, to show why any genes SHOULD or
SHOULD NOT have survived.
Glen Morton's second point for why evolution can provide a "good
reason" for murder being "wrong" seems to misapply the very concept of
evolution. [Cf. G. Morton: "[S]ince even a mutant with no legs and an IQ of
50 can pull a
trigger eliminating Einstein, murder provides no basis for natural
selection."]
First, I think it's undeniable that "murder provides no basis for
natural selection." But the REAL question is whether natural selection
provides any basis for murder! Secondly, I don't know why ANY evolutionist
would want to claim that the "fittest" individual ALWAYS defeats the "less
fit." So what if the mutant kills Einstein. In the long run, there will be
other "Einsteins" who will do in the mutant. IN THE LONG RUN, the fitter
organisms will prevail. But even with this understanding, evolution still
can't provide a LOGICAL basis for telling me or anyone that murder is
"wrong"--that the Einstein's SHOULDN'T eliminate the mutants. And it can't
tell me why, if the Einstein's do eliminate the one's with a 50 IQ, those
Einstein's should be held not only morally culpable but punitively accountable.


4. Just because the focus of the thread has shifted some from the
original question of the relationship between evolution and racism does not
mean that the original discussion was "resolved." Brian Harper claims,
however, that since "no one has given any rational arguments as to why the
theory of evolution should be blamed for such things I will consider that
phase of the discussion resolved."
From my perspective (having read all the posts), there IS a
plausible logical connection between naturalistic evolution and racism, and
several posts have helped to bring this to light. And those who have argued
that there isn't any logical connection have not only failed on that point,
they have failed to explain how naturalistic evolution can provide a
justification for (or against) ANY morality. If the discussion has been
"resolved," it's been resolved in favor of those who were contending FOR the
connection.
In a related post, Brian Harper specifically asks three questions
(points a,b,&c). Based on my position as expressed above, I offer my own
brief responses.

(a) How would you answer a person who refuses to accept your
views of morality?

I would say that, relative to the objective nature of morality, it
is irrelevant whether they accept it or refuse it.

(b) How would you answer a person who refuses to accept the
existence of a transcendent moral system?

I would say, once again, that it is irrelevant with respect to its
truth. Secondly, I would contend that they can claim whatever they want,
but their behavior will undermine the very point they profess. They can't
(and don't) live that way when it comes to what somebody does to them or
their wife or kids. So someone who refuses a transcendent moral system is
either saying something IRRELEVANT to its truth or they are INCONSISTENT
with themselves. In either case, it's not a very effective basis for
justifying one's rejection.

Rich Knopp, M.Div., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College and Seminary
Lincoln, IL. 62656

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0241.html

I recommend the full quote, but as the subject matter does consider racism in relation to evolution, I edited those portions. I do think the subject is handled tastefully, and with a minimum nod to politics, but it treats the overall subject of morality in relation to evolution in a very respectful manner, IMO.

Sincere comments?

To Vaj, I understand your position regarding "God." This quote was originally directed to atheists. So while the context is Christian to Atheist, I would hope you would look to the essence behind what is being said, if you would be so kind as to provide your view. Thanks,