morality within evolution

[alexa]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Is there greater spiritual value in brutal honesty, or in kindhearted subtlety? Is a lie, a lie? Is a "little white" lie as much an improper wrong as a deliberate deceit is?

Hello Juan,

In my modest opinion, we cannot associate something of a spiritual value with "brutal" and whatever comes after this word.

A spiritual value is supposed to grow you up, upper than your usual menthal state. A spiritual value is supposed to help you realize your devine nature hidden deep inside of you.

An animal lives only to eat and reproduce. It cannot realize the beauty of the spirituality in the world. That's why the human being is, at least in theory, on a higher level of evolution. Those humans who live only to eat and reproduce are on the same level as an animal.

Regards,

Alexa

[lunamoth]

An interesting quote by John Stuart Mill, a utilitarianist of Darwin's day:

"In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."

Utlitarianism, I gather, is the assertion that happiness is better than suffering and morality is based in achieving the greater happiness (least suffering) for the greatest number of people. In The Moral Animal, Wright postulates that this is the lowest common denominator for all moral systems, "the only basic part that we all share." Mill surmised that the way to maximize overall happiness was for everyone to be self-sacrificing.

[lunamoth]

And another quote from R. Wright (throughout The Moral Animal Wright brings in Darwin's personal insights and private life):

"Once Darwin fathomed natural selection, he surely saw how deeply his ethics were at odds with the values it implies. This insidius lethality of a aprasitic wasp, the cruelty of a cat playing with a mouse--these are, after all, just the tip of the iceberg. To ponder natural selection is to be staggered by the amount of suffering and death that can be the prices for a single, slight advance in organic design."

[lunamoth]

Another on point quote from TMA:

"We are potentially moral animals--which is more than any other animal can say--but we aren't naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren't."

Is this the basis/need for the story of The Fall? Is this why we have a "God-shaped hole?"

And where did this need for morality come? It seems that the evolution of self-consciousness would be fairly detrimental to a selfish gene. Why all the extra baggage of morality? It seems to me that here is better "evidence" for God than in any claim from Intelligent Design about the structure of the eye. Not that we are perfectly created, but that we are imperfectly so. And yet, here we are.

[alexa]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

"We are potentially moral animals--which is more than any other animal can say--but we aren't naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren't."

I agree with that.

Let's hope Juan agrees too. If not, we'll have to work hard to find another answer.

Just kidding Juan,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Luna and Alexa!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

And where did this need for morality come? It seems that the evolution of self-consciousness would be fairly detrimental to a selfish gene. Why all the extra baggage of morality? It seems to me that here is better "evidence" for God than in any claim from Intelligent Design about the structure of the eye. Not that we are perfectly created, but that we are imperfectly so. And yet, here we are.

Wow! Awesome contribution!

I'm working on another question in my head, but I have company visiting so posting it before I can think it through is not gonna happen. Yuck, my syntax is horrible this morning, apologies!

[Abogado del Diablo]

It's as if Rogers Cadenhead were following this thread!

Today's "Cruel Site of the Day" (www.cruel.com)

Check out this political and moral justification for eugenics:

http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/

Just a historical tidbit, BTW: the book John Scopes taught "evolution" from contained a chapter on eugenics.

[Vajradhara]

what "god shaped hole"?


what shape is God?

besides which, though i know that physicists don't like it, the Anthropic Principle would be another method of explaning the how of our physical being.

[Abogado del Diablo]

More on eugenics . . .

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)

"However, the initial principle defined by Galton, was directly in connection with the teaching and work of Darwin, himself very influenced by Malthus. According to Darwin, the mechanisms of the natural selection are thwarted by human civilization. One of the objectives of civilization is somehow to help the underprivileged ones, therefore to be opposed to the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest. According to eugenicists, the loss of effectiveness could lead to an increasing number of individuals who would have normally been eliminated through natural selection processes. Eugenicists thus propose to promote actions to balance effects of natural selection mechanism loss within civilizations. This basic principle inspired numerous and very diverse philosophies, scientific or pseudo-scientific theories and social practices."

The idea for many adherents of the school of Eugenics was to actually and deliberately "override" morality in the name of biological progress. The implicit argument was that a morality that condoned helping the poor and the weak was contrary to the evolutionary process. It was particularly wide-sweeping in its application and acceptance when it was married with the concept of human "races."

It's important to note that the philosophy of eugenics gathered its earliest steam in America, long before Hitler came across it. Indeed, according to American Eugenicist and author of "The Case of Sterilization", Leon Whitney, both he and fellow American Eugenicist Madison Grant both received personal letters of thanks from the Fuhrer. According to Whitney, Grant's letter from Hitler included the statement that the Fuhrer considered Grant's "The Passing of the Great Race" as his "Bible."

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

I don't know why I have a problem remembering the term "eugenics," but I thank you for the reminder.

It appears you are wise enough to make the distinction, but for the sake of others I think it is important to remind that out of respect because of some recent events on this forum, we need to take care this conversation doesn't place any great focus on the political aspects.

The question still remains however, even in the light just presented. Would a eugenic focused moral philosophy be a better path for humanity in general? Or is it better for the most in disregarding our natural propensities and reach beyond?

I did think the connection with Malthus interesting. Malthusian population control carries its own moral implications not easily resolved.

[juantoo3]

I'm going to take a stab at forming my most recent question.

In terms of seeking spirit, of attempting to be most in harmony with the universal IS, is it better to pursue a path that stresses our inherent human nature, of being "more human?" Or it is better to pursue a path that transcends our human nature, to "rise above" our human-ness?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

The question still remains however, even in the light just presented. Would a eugenic focused moral philosophy be a better path for humanity in general? Or is it better for the most in disregarding our natural propensities and reach beyond?

That's an odd question on several levels I think. First, what is a "better path for humanity" and does such a term have any meaning when we are talking about an amoral biological system? If humanity as we know it is "selected out" is that a moral "good" or "evil" or is it just evolution doing its business?

Second, is "evolution" responsible for Eugenics? Is our greater genetic representation in the biosphere achieved through applying our knowledge to override the innate sentiments of "morality?" And should that be our goal? Or should we have any "goal"?

Third, has "morality" outlived its biological usefulness and primed itself for extinction?

The paradigm shift between the amorality of ecology and a discussion of "morality within evolution" may simply be impossible. Eugenics tried to make that shift - to build a "morality" out of the amorality of the "evolutionary process." Did it work? Some would argue that Eugenics brought about such a crisis of conscience through WWII that it marked the beginning of end of overt European and American Colonialism and the racist ideologies that justified it.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm going to take a stab at forming my most recent question.

In terms of seeking spirit, of attempting to be most in harmony with the universal IS, is it better to pursue a path that stresses our inherent human nature, of being "more human?" Or it is better to pursue a path that transcends our human nature, to "rise above" our human-ness?

Interesting question juan.

Does the question presuppose, however, that we switch from one moral paradigm to another? Such a paradigm shift seems to be written into the question ("is it better"). Is a different moral paradigm the answer or is embracing no moral paradigm and reconnecting with ecology by going beyond reason and beyond "good" and "evil" the only means to "rising above our human-ness?" And is my own last question also self-contradictory in the same way?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Interesting question juan.

Does the question presuppose, however, that we switch from one moral paradigm to another? Such a paradigm shift seems to be written into the question ("is it better"). Is a different moral paradigm the answer or is embracing no moral paradigm and reconnecting with ecology by going beyond reason and beyond "good" and "evil" the only means to "rising above our human-ness?" And is my own last question also self-contradictory in the same way?

Conceptually, yes. The difference being "which way is up?"

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

what "god shaped hole"?
What shape is God?
besides which, though i know that physicists don't like it, the Anthropic Principle would be another method of explaning the how of our physical being.

True Vaj, but yet while I do not in any way presume to speak for Luna, does she not mean the circuit, the connection back to the source? The difference as I see it, is that all of nature, every living thing, is tied back to the source. Different "plugs" maybe, but all life (chi) is tied together, and to the source. Is this not the "web of life?"

Consider the time Jesus cast the devils into the swine.

Or the talking ass that belonged to a prophet in the OT.

Spirit interacts with the whole of nature, down to and including the earth. Stones are alive.