Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Cheetah]

Hence, as I’ve been arguing all along, social animals such as these have evolved to instinctively cooperate with others within the group. Primarily within the family, but by extension within their tribe and then by extension with other tribes etc. I would go one step further in the case of human primate. Among humans the innate loyalties to the family and tribe have now been extended to the ‘super tribe’ of our multicultural global village as indicated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You can do that, but it's not science, it's your personal opinion.
You are just picking a small subset of social behaviors and declaring it good and the rest bad.
You keep on ignoring the fact that evolution and natural selection operates on an individual bases and altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the self interest of the individual and it's genes.

...social animals such as these have evolved to instinctively cooperate with others within the group

Repeating this over and over does not make it true. You ignore all my arguments and links showing how this is false, how it cannot be true, evolution cannot work this way.
Make an argument, explain how you think it is possible. How can evolution do this?

The evolution of altruistic social preferences in human groups

Even when individuals do not need to make trade-offs between outcomes that benefit themselves and outcomes that benefit others, they do not consistently take advantage of opportunities to deliver rewards to others.

Selfless cooperating individuals cannot be selected for, only against.
I already explained why, the fictitious cooperators and cheaters example, you ignored this.

Cooperation with offspring supersedes cooperation with the family group.
Cooperation within the family group supersedes cooperation within the tribe.
Cooperation within the tribe supersedes cooperation within the species.
Cooperation within the species supersedes cooperation with other species.

You agree with this yet don't seem to see how it negates your whole argument.

Nepotism exists because of this.
Tribalism exists because of this.
Cheaters, thieves and killers exists because of this.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Something about intelligence and morality:
http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialScien...apter 8 Ethics/Reading-Barger-on-Kohlberg.htm

It is a cognitive theory of how humans evolve on an individual level as how they reason about morality.
What is interesting is that you can spot that online in Internet debates about morality and ethics.
If you then study how many humans achieve stage 5 or 6, the studies I have read puts the maximum at around 20% of an adult population.
Most argue with a combination of "Good boy/girl" and law and order as "if that is natural/self-evident/rational and what not" and that "bad" is "unnatural".
They don't understand that good/bad and law and order are cultural/social constructs, because they take their own culture for being self-evident and good. That effect is psychology and it is not an automatic given that all humans develop to be able to be meta-cognitive about their own values and culture.
That requires the study of social sciences and philosophy in some sense.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Tassman.

Altruistic behavior.
Short example - I kill somebody in order for me to take their food and feed my children.
Is that altruistic behavior?
Well, yes and no
The problem seems to be that altruistic behavior is not just one narrow single simple kind of behavior and that is the claim in part.

In other words, the problem is this: Science explains that there are different kinds of altruistic behavior and that the best one is general altruistic behavior towards humanity viewed as one group.
The problem is that "the best one is general altruistic behavior towards humanity viewed as one group" is not science, because "the best one" is not science. That is it!

 

[Tassman]

Any moral system is based on evolution, because man is a product of evolution.

True. In a sense that's all that need be said.

But man is also the product of cultural learning.

Only inasmuch as it’s consistent with his evolutionary status as a social creature. The former is grounded in the latter.

There are many diverse moralities because morality is not natural, but cultural.

Morality is natural IMHO. Morals are just rules of behaviour, which developed to restrain individual selfishness and build more cooperative groups...so important for our survival as a species.

In modern societies we consider properly moral those that reinforce cooperation instead aggression, altruism instead selfishness, empathy instead hate, etc. Nature provides us both aggression as cooperation. Therefore our choice for reinforce cooperation cannot be a natural impulse but a cultural option. In order to foster moral choices we cannot to have recourse to natural impulses but cultural reasons and learnings.

It’s a natural impulse, I think, albeit often perverted; it’s not based in moral reasoning or religion...although we often rationalise it in such terms. We see similar natural behavioural patterns and precursors to human morality among the chimpanzees.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

True. In a sense that's all that need be said.

No, it is not, it is to simple.

Only inasmuch as it’s consistent with his evolutionary status as a social creature. The former is grounded in the latter.

Genghis Khan was a social creature with a culture.

Morality is natural IMHO. Morals are just rules of behaviour, which developed to restrain individual selfishness and build more cooperative groups...so important for our survival as a species.

There we go again - you are conflating a social group with humanity and is unable to given evidence using science for the fact it is important.
When I die, the human species will still be there. All members of a species need not to replicate(have offspring) nor have a good life for the species to survive. You don't understand that a species survive because a sufficient number reproduce and that there are different strategies for that and that not all members of a species need to reproduce.

It’s a natural impulse, I think, albeit often perverted; it’s not based in moral reasoning or religion...although we often rationalise it in such terms. We see similar natural behavioural patterns and precursors to human morality among the chimpanzees.

So please give a link to a scientific study of that "perverted" is unnatural. You can't seem to grasp your own biases and you fail to understand when you are not doing science and not being objective.
You need to study some psychology, social science and philosophy to understand the difference between culture and nature.

 

[Tassman]

The problem is that it is natural to have a "strong man" authoritative system as it falls within evolution. What Genghis Khan did, was not unnatural and it meets the requirements of evolution, he had a lot of offspring.

Oh yes, the chimps have their alpha males that administer the accepted practices of their communities with a firm fist. Humans once had absolute monarchs to the same end and theistic communities had their priests ruling in the name of their god. Tribal societies have always been hierarchical. None of this detracts from the fact of group-living, which is the underlying reason for rules of behaviour in the first place, regardless of how it was administered.

That is your problem.

I have a problem? Ahem!

Here is another example -
The few versus the many in a modern setting and the difference between caring and having offspring. Think of a welfare grandmother or if you like a social misfit. She "misuses" the welfare system and has a lot of children. Both her sons and daughters do the same - "misuse" the welfare system and have a lot of offspring. And in general they don't care for their offspring as you would like them to do.
Now do their behavior fall within biological evolution? Can we say that they are a biological niche or human subculture that works in biological terms?

Individual bad behaviour within the community purview does not nullify the importance of the social organism. The very fact that we recognise such ‘scams’ for what they are and attempt to remedy the abuses reinforces the need to maintain a well functioning society.

Do you see the problem now?

It's not a problem beyond resolution.

If you want to achieve a better world through intelligence then you have to explain how that works in practice?!!
Your claim to intelligence is empty because you have only used emotions so far. I.e. that we must understand that human rights are better for us. That is an emotional plea, so far not backed up by intelligence.

The recognition of universal human rights is not an emotional plea. To deny universal human rights may well be an emotional response and to do that is what requires explaining.

As David Mo pointed out it is a question of culture, what we learn. Not that we can learn as humans, that is biology.

What we learn is grounded in what we are.

With regards

Cheers.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Oh yes, the chimps have their alpha males that administer the accepted practices of their communities with a firm fist. Humans once had absolute monarchs to the same end and theistic communities had their priests ruling in the name of their god.

They, humans, still have!!!

Tribal societies have always been hierarchical. None of this detracts from the fact of group-living, which is the underlying reason for rules of behaviour in the first place, regardless of how it was administered.

But it is all natural!!! So where is wrong? Killing and exploiting other humans is natural!

Individual bad behaviour within the community purview does not nullify the importance of the social organism. The very fact that we recognise such ‘scams’ for what they are and attempt to remedy the abuses reinforces the need to maintain a well functioning society.

Evidence for that only using natural science and not culture.

The recognition of universal human rights is not an emotional plea. To deny universal human rights may well be an emotional response and to do that is what requires explaining.

It is and it is cultural and learned over time. To deny is natural, cultural and human. You can't see your own emotional and cultural biases. Human rights are a cultural product and not a natural law like gravity.

What we learn is grounded in what we are.

There is no "we" in what we are as humans in different cultures. There are different cultures and that you can't see your own cultural biases, don't mean that it isn't there. It just mean that you can't see it.

With regards

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Tassman
Some times I am slow and also forget what I have learned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

This is relevant, because it mirrors what is going on here:
Human rights are natural and all other divergent behavior is bad and sort of "unnatural", because all human behavior is ground in universal altruism and cooperation (human rights) and all other behavior is perverted, social misfits and bad.
Albeit the fact that this claim is a cultural bias(sub-culture) within a species and not representative of all the species in natural, biological terms.

I get you! All human behavior is naturally grounded, except those which is about the category of "bad", because they are not really natural. They are perverted, but the problem is, that if they are perverted as taking place within a natural world, they are natural.

You really are unable to see your own emotions and bias at being that, right? You can't get behind the understanding that different cultures are all natural and you are a product of a given culture.

With regards

 

[Myriad]

10 "But there are certain common motifs in moral systems across different times and cultures. Therefore there must be a basis to morality that science cannot possibly grasp."

20 "No, it's because morality is based upon humans' evolution as a social species."

30 "But not all individuals conform to moral values, and moral values differ in different cultures. Therefore morality can't have evolved."

40 "There are often competitive advantages to breaking moral rules. Nonetheless, all cultures manage to develop moral standards by which behavior is judged and defaulters are penalized by the society."

50 GOTO 10

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

10 "But there are certain common motifs in moral systems across different times and cultures. Therefore there must be a basis to morality that science cannot possibly grasp."
20 "No, it's because morality is based upon humans' evolution as a social species."

30 "But not all individuals conform to moral values, and moral values differ in different cultures. Therefore morality can't have evolved."

40 "There are often competitive advantages to breaking moral rules. Nonetheless, all cultures manage to develop moral standards by which behavior is judged and defaulters are penalized by the society."

50 GOTO 10

Yes, biological evolution is the basis for subjectivity and all moral and ethical systems are subjective and inter-subjective if shared by several humans. That has the result that moral good and bad are subjective (good or bad to someone/a group), yet natural and thus a scientist or group of scientists can't use the scientific methodology to do moral good or bad to someone/a group, because the scientific methodology is objective. It leads to a contradiction in the following sense - the scientist(s) are at the same time and in the same sense both objective as without bias (methodology) and not as morality is a bias (for someone and against someone else). Further moral good and bad can't be observed in the scientific sense, because you can't use the external senses to observe morality. You feel it and can use reason on it, but it is still a feeling(bias), subjective and not universal like gravity.
You also don't have a scientific theory of moral good and bad and no international scientific measurement standard for moral good and bad.

How do you explain that some theists hate evolution beyond young earth creationism. Because it gives evidence for the fact that moral good and bad are subjective and not objective.

as to 20 it should read: It's because morality is based upon evolution as biological fact as it takes place within a social group all the "way" back to replication to the fittest gene and ends in altruistic kin behavior as a biological process to varying degrees among non-kin related members of a group. But there are other factors in play as well.

as to 30: "But not all individuals conform to moral values, and moral values differ in different cultures. Therefore morality can't have evolved." Morality is evolved in cultural terms, but it is not evolved to something better in biological terms. There is no purpose or better in evolution, there are natural processes.

as to 40 "There are often competitive advantages to breaking moral rules. Nonetheless, all cultures manage to develop moral standards by which behavior is judged and defaulters are penalized by the society."
But no all cultures share the exact same standards, thus there are no universal and objective single set of moral standards.

50 is irrelevant.

With regards

 

[Tassman]

They, humans, still have!!!

In some places yes, it that a good thing? Totalitarianism has rarely been beneficial to the majority.

But it is all natural!!! So where is wrong? Killing and exploiting other humans is natural!

Yes, it’s “natural”, what else would it be, supernatural?

The overriding natural instinct is survival. And the “survival” of a social species such as us depends upon successful group living. Hence, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their "natural" antisocial behaviours to enable successful cohesive societies.

Evidence for that only using natural science and not culture.

“Culture” does not arise in a vacuum. The basis of ALL cultures is natural morality. This has evolved via natural selection into the capacity for bonding, cooperation, empathy, reciprocity, altruism, conflict resolution and the awareness of the social rules of the group. Without these qualities being developed within us in the first place there could be NO “culture” or morality as we know it today.

It is and it is cultural and learned over time. To deny is natural, cultural and human. You can't see your own emotional and cultural biases. Human rights are a cultural product and not a natural law like gravity.

Human rights for all are a natural progression from the human rights we acknowledge among those within our own tribes. The UDHR is just tribalism writ large, acknowledging the reality that we no longer live in tribal units but in a world-wide community.

There is no "we" in what we are as humans in different cultures. There are different cultures and that you can't see your own cultural biases, don't mean that it isn't there. It just mean that you can't see it.

“Different cultures” arise because of geographical separation...inevitable in the past but no longer applicable today. The common factor is that “we” are a social species genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals. The more homogeneous the world becomes the more unified the culture is likely to be.

With regards

Cheers.

 

[David Mo]

Only inasmuch as it’s consistent with his evolutionary status as a social creature. The former is grounded in the latter.


Morality is natural IMHO. Morals are just rules of behaviour, which developed to restrain individual selfishness and build more cooperative groups...so important for our survival as a species.


It’s a natural impulse, I think, albeit often perverted; it’s not based in moral reasoning or religion...although we often rationalise it in such terms. We see similar natural behavioural patterns and precursors to human morality among the chimpanzees.

I repeat:

Asking whether animals possess morality is almost like asking if they have a culture, a policy or a language. If we take the human phenomenon as a model in its entirety, it is evident that it is not. However, if we divide the most relevant human skills into their various components, we will see that some are recognizable in other animals. (Frans de Waal: Bien natural, p. 270. Translation from Spanish is mine.)

Have you read this?

There is not morality in animals. Of course, the Empire State Building is based on its foundations but it is not its foundations. There is cooperation in animals but it is very different of human cooperation. There is not among animals a species feeling similar to sense of humanity in humans. Etc., etc.

Yes, it’s “natural”, what else would it be, supernatural?

The overriding natural instinct is survival. And the “survival” of a social species such as us depends upon successful group living. Hence, all social animals have had to modify or restrain their "natural" antisocial behaviours to enable successful cohesive societies.


“Culture” does not arise in a vacuum. The basis of ALL cultures is natural morality. This has evolved via natural selection into the capacity for bonding, cooperation, empathy, reciprocity, altruism, conflict resolution and the awareness of the social rules of the group. Without these qualities being developed within us in the first place there could be NO “culture” or morality as we know it today.

Your basic mistake:
Natural is not only opposed to supernatural. Natural is also opposed to cultural. Cultural rules are not evolutionary natural rules. For example: humans keep alive weak individuals that would die in natural world. Demographic human laws are not natural laws neither decided by the laws of evolution but by a different moral behaviour. There is not anything in nature similar to democratic cooperation. There is not anything in nature similar to respect to a defeated enemy or pardon those that had offend us, a virgin monk or a rejected lover that kills himself.

Your mistake again: To be founded in nature doesn’t means to be natural as opposite to cultural.

Furthermore: there is not anything similar to conscientious dissidence in natural laws. Animals execute the laws that Nature dictates. Humans can conscientious infringe these laws.

“Different cultures” arise because of geographical separation...inevitable in the past but no longer applicable today. The common factor is that “we” are a social species genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals. The more homogeneous the world becomes the more unified the culture is likely to be.

You jump to a subject from another without transition. One thing is the issue of the causes of moral behaviour and other is the justification of moral laws. The first is a factual problem; the latter is a moral problem. The first concerns the being of things; the second concerns what to be done. They are very different issues.

Human rights for all are a natural progression from the human rights we acknowledge among those within our own tribes. The UDHR is just tribalism writ large, acknowledging the reality that we no longer live in tribal units but in a world-wide community.

Just that “progression” is cultural and not natural. It implies the assumption of a cultural model of society and moral rights. No animal has any similar thing to the UDHR. They remain linked to family, group or tribe. This is the natural borders of animal cooperation.

But the moral question is other. Even though Nature were so “moral” as you like to think, I would ask myself why I ought to do what Nature dictates and decide without any contradiction to be “naturally immoral”. Why should I do what the flock wants? Who is Nature to be my tyrant? I am a human being not a sheep and I am only happy when I manifest my power over the lambs! This is the proper moral question and no biological answer can be brought here.

 

[Tassman]

I repeat:

Have you read this?

There is not morality in animals. Of course, the Empire State Building is based on its foundations but it is not its foundations. There is cooperation in animals but it is very different of human cooperation. There is not among animals a species feeling similar to sense of humanity in humans. Etc., etc.

I have never said animals have morality. Get it right. What I’ve said is that certain animals, e.g. chimpanzees, exhibit the precursors of morality and share many characteristics with humans. E.g. they, like us, exhibit four kinds of behaviour — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — this is the basis of sociality among primate, including the human primate.

Your basic mistake:
Natural is not only opposed to supernatural. Natural is also opposed to cultural. Cultural rules are not evolutionary natural rules. For example: humans keep alive weak individuals that would die in natural world. Demographic human laws are not natural laws neither decided by the laws of evolution but by a different moral behaviour. There is not anything in nature similar to democratic cooperation. There is not anything in nature similar to respect to a defeated enemy or pardon those that had offend us, a virgin monk or a rejected lover that kills himself.

This is demonstrably wrong. We share 99% of our DNA with the chimpanzee and the bonobo. And yet we’re often surprised to learn that apes, like us, can be both kind and clever

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...compassionate-behaviour-just-like-humans.html

Primates learn compassionate behaviour from each other - just like humans.

Your mistake again: To be founded in nature doesn’t means to be natural as opposite to cultural.

Cultural behaviour is natural to all advanced social species....any highly organised society with rules of behaviour can be described as a culture, including ape communities. We humans are just cleverer than our simian cousins.

Furthermore: there is not anything similar to conscientious dissidence in natural laws. Animals execute the laws that Nature dictates. Humans can conscientious infringe these laws.

Humans have the illusion of freely executing decisions. In fact it’s the underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action. This is the problem for free will. To a large extent behaviour is determined for both chimps and humans.

You jump to a subject from another without transition. One thing is the issue of the causes of moral behaviour and other is the justification of moral laws. The first is a factual problem; the latter is a moral problem. The first concerns the being of things; the second concerns what to be done. They are very different issues.

The only justification for moral laws is their acceptance or otherwise by the community. Or do you think absolute, unchangeable moral laws exist for all eternity...floating around in some sort of Platonic heaven awaiting discovery by mere mortals?

Just that “progression” is cultural and not natural. It implies the assumption of a cultural model of society and moral rights. No animal has any similar thing to the UDHR. They remain linked to family, group or tribe. This is the natural borders of animal cooperation.

The progression of morality and ‘rights’ is natural for humans, it is not natural for the lesser primates because they lack the necessary intelligence.

But the moral question is other. Even though Nature were so “moral” as you like to think,

I DON’T think that. See above re animal characteristics and behaviour just being just the precursors of human morality...no more than that.

I would ask myself why I ought to do what Nature dictates and decide without any contradiction to be “naturally immoral”. Why should I do what the flock wants? Who is Nature to be my tyrant? I am a human being not a sheep and I am only happy when I manifest my power over the lambs! This is the proper moral question and no biological answer can be brought here.

If you think you are greater than “nature” you are delusional. You may see yourself as a free spirit but you have arisen naturally and your moral instincts are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. That's all.

 

[Cheetah]

Nothing to say about my post Tassman?

 

[Tassman]

Nothing to say about my post Tassman?

Apologies! I overlooked it for some reason.

You can do that, but it's not science, it's your personal opinion.
You are just picking a small subset of social behaviors and declaring it good and the rest bad.

I’m not making any value judgements at all, merely observing what is.

You keep on ignoring the fact that evolution and natural selection operates on an individual bases and altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the self interest of the individual and it's genes.

Yes, it is it is in the self interest of the individual and its genes to be social animals. But knowing this does not alter the reality that we ARE a social species, with all that entails.

Repeating this over and over does not make it true. You ignore all my arguments and links showing how this is false, how it cannot be true, evolution cannot work this way.
Make an argument, explain how you think it is possible. How can evolution do this?

The evolution of altruistic social preferences in human groups

But evolution HAS worked in this way, as your link indicates. It may not yet be fully understood and warrant further research, but altruistic, reciprocal social behaviour demonstrably forms the basis of our communities and notions of right and wrong.

Selfless cooperating individuals cannot be selected for, only against.
I already explained why, the fictitious cooperators and cheaters example, you ignored this.
You agree with this yet don't seem to see how it negates your whole argument.

Nepotism exists because of this.
Tribalism exists because of this.
Cheaters, thieves and killers exists because of this.

This does not “negate the whole argument” at all, quite the contrary it supports the argument. It means we recognise such things as bad and the need to remove such destructive elements from our communities. This is the sole reason for our complex judicial system...so as to maintain our cohesive society and eliminate anti-social behaviour.

 

[David Mo]

I have never said animals have morality. Get it right. What I’ve said is that certain animals, e.g. chimpanzees, exhibit the precursors of morality and share many characteristics with humans. E.g. they, like us, exhibit four kinds of behaviour — empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking — this is the basis of sociality among primate, including the human primate.



This is demonstrably wrong. We share 99% of our DNA with the chimpanzee and the bonobo. And yet we’re often surprised to learn that apes, like us, can be both kind and clever

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...compassionate-behaviour-just-like-humans.html

Primates learn compassionate behaviour from each other - just like humans.



Cultural behaviour is natural to all advanced social species....any highly organised society with rules of behaviour can be described as a culture, including ape communities. We humans are just cleverer than our simian cousins.



Humans have the illusion of freely executing decisions. In fact it’s the underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action. This is the problem for free will. To a large extent behaviour is determined for both chimps and humans.



The only justification for moral laws is their acceptance or otherwise by the community. Or do you think absolute, unchangeable moral laws exist for all eternity...floating around in some sort of Platonic heaven awaiting discovery by mere mortals?



The progression of morality and ‘rights’ is natural for humans, it is not natural for the lesser primates because they lack the necessary intelligence.



I DON’T think that. See above re animal characteristics and behaviour just being just the precursors of human morality...no more than that.



If you think you are greater than “nature” you are delusional. You may see yourself as a free spirit but you have arisen naturally and your moral instincts are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation and are a consequence of natural selection. That's all.

Thank you for the link but the authors of this study are a little presumptuous. Animal cooperation has been studied long ago. As early as in the nineteenth century the famous anarchist Piotr Kropotkin already mentioned the evolutionary importance of cooperation and in the field of empirical research Robert Trivers published in 1972 Evolution and Reciprocal Altruism, a key book.

The example quoted in the article does not contradict what I am saying: there is cooperation in animals that is learned. Chimpanzees teach how to hunt ants with a stick or purge themselves with laxative leaves. In highly evolved species such as chimpanzees this learning is visual. That is why ethologists today speak of the culture of certain animal species, to distinguish socially learned behaviors from fixed patterns of action that we usually call "instincts.

But human culture is of a different nature. De Waal asserts that animal cooperation is immediate and tribal limited. Human cooperation is often strictly altruistic, i. e. we help people from which we don't expect anything in return, from people we don't even know.

De Waal points out that among animals there is hostility or indifference towards the weak. Let them rot. It's a rejection of the weak or sick that delighted Nietzschean Nazis. Lionesses constantly change location of the herd through strenuous hikes in which the weakest young are abandoned. Their moaning doesn't make a dent in the mothers. This is in contrast to the protests against Nazis when they undertook the euthanasia of mentally handicapped. Support for victims of wars or natural disasters is not reciprocal altruism like that of some animals. It's moral altruism. De Waal is wrong not to point out this important difference.

I do not defend the individual who considers himself to be above the flock. It was an example more or less based on Nietzsche. But this is not only the case of the Nietzschean individual that I reproduced in my previous commentary. I used it as an example of someone who decides to be against the morality of the flock. You can be above or against nature in two ways: by being insolidary (rejecting cooperation) or altruistic (rejecting selfishness).

You say that what is morality is the community of the species and you cite the UDHR as an example. Well, the UDHR is already above nature for good. When it exploits resources or men to make life impossible it is already above nature for evil. Both are consequences of human culture.

You recognise that culture is something independent of nature when you say that animals have no morals - which is obvious, on the other hand - or that differences are due to human intelligence. I don't care what the cause is. What is clear is that human culture does not follow the same rules as the natural evolution of species. Whether the cause is intelligence or a superior learning ability, I don't care. I think that your problem is that you identify the opposition to biologism as a sign of religion or metaphysics. You're wrong. One of the greatest opponents is historical materialism, which, as you will know, is materialist.

I believe that man is an animal and nothing more than an animal, but he has developed abilities that often go in a different direction than sheer animal evolution. These capacities - especially social learning - can be used for good or bad. They produce things as amazingly good such as vaccines and as surprisingly bad such as torture by sensory deprivation. I believe that the human being has the ability to choose between good and bad, and we call that choice moral and say that it is a free activity to distinguish it from others that are biologically determined. Thus we distinguish the sexuality that leads a bonobo to continuously practice sex from the restrictions that human beings establish in their dealings with the other sex. If you don't want to call "free" an activity that doesn't have a certain causal sequence, call it what you want, but you should name it in some way. I simply say that morality consists of our freedom to choose what we believe to be good or bad.

 

[Cheetah]

I’m not making any value judgements at all, merely observing what is.

Are you?

Yes, it is it is in the self interest of the individual and its genes to be social animals. But knowing this does not alter the reality that we ARE a social species, with all that entails.

I agree, being social animals is in the self interest of the individual, but being social animals is not just cooperation and altruism, those are just a small part of it. It entails much more.

This does not “negate the whole argument” at all, quite the contrary it supports the argument. It means we recognise such things as bad and the need to remove such destructive elements from our communities. This is the sole reason for our complex judicial system...so as to maintain our cohesive society and eliminate anti-social behaviour.

How do you decide which parts of human nature are bad and to be discouraged and which are good and to be encouraged? I don't think you can do this using science. You do seem to be making a value judgement.

 

[Tassman]

Thank you for the link but the authors of this study are a little presumptuous. Animal cooperation has been studied long ago. As early as in the nineteenth century the famous anarchist Piotr Kropotkin already mentioned the evolutionary importance of cooperation and in the field of empirical research Robert Trivers published in 1972 Evolution and Reciprocal Altruism, a key book.

The example quoted in the article does not contradict what I am saying: there is cooperation in animals that is learned. Chimpanzees teach how to hunt ants with a stick or purge themselves with laxative leaves. In highly evolved species such as chimpanzees this learning is visual. That is why ethologists today speak of the culture of certain animal species, to distinguish socially learned behaviors from fixed patterns of action that we usually call "instincts.

But human culture is of a different nature. De Waal asserts that animal cooperation is immediate and tribal limited. Human cooperation is often strictly altruistic, i. e. we help people from which we don't expect anything in return, from people we don't even know.

No I don’t think so. Human cooperation is of the same order as that of chimpanzees but a more advanced version of it, given the much greater intelligence of humans.

De Waal points out that among animals there is hostility or indifference towards the weak. Let them rot. It's a rejection of the weak or sick that delighted Nietzschean Nazis. Lionesses constantly change location of the herd through strenuous hikes in which the weakest young are abandoned. Their moaning doesn't make a dent in the mothers. This is in contrast to the protests against Nazis when they undertook the euthanasia of mentally handicapped. Support for victims of wars or natural disasters is not reciprocal altruism like that of some animals. It's moral altruism. De Waal is wrong not to point out this important difference.

All of this is true, but again I think it is accounted for by the greater human intelligence. Unlike the chimps, humans are not locked into the primate sociability of our origins. Humans have the wherewithal to develop and change. Although, I would suggest that primitive man around the time of the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees was not much different from his simian cousins.

I do not defend the individual who considers himself to be above the flock. It was an example more or less based on Nietzsche. But this is not only the case of the Nietzschean individual that I reproduced in my previous commentary. I used it as an example of someone who decides to be against the morality of the flock. You can be above or against nature in two ways: by being insolidary (rejecting cooperation) or altruistic (rejecting selfishness).

OK. I agree. Those against the morality of the flock can often be the trailblazers of social change, e.g. Martin Luther King or Gandhi.

You say that what is morality is the community of the species and you cite the UDHR as an example. Well, the UDHR is already above nature for good. When it exploits resources or men to make life impossible it is already above nature for evil. Both are consequences of human culture.

I would say that the UDHR is a natural and logical development of tribal morality in a world where tribalism is being displaced by a universal, multicultural society.

OTOH your contrary example is not necessarily a natural consequence of human culture but exploitation by selfish people to benefit at the expense of others. In short, it is anti-social behaviour which cannot be tolerated by society.

You recognise that culture is something independent of nature when you say that animals have no morals - which is obvious, on the other hand - or that differences are due to human intelligence. I don't care what the cause is. What is clear is that human culture does not follow the same rules as the natural evolution of species. Whether the cause is intelligence or a superior learning ability, I don't care. I think that your problem is that you identify the opposition to biologism as a sign of religion or metaphysics. You're wrong. One of the greatest opponents is historical materialism, which, as you will know, is materialist.

No, I do not recognise that culture is something independent of nature, merely that humans have the intelligence to build and grow upon what went before. The lesser primates do not. It’s all nature.

I believe that man is an animal and nothing more than an animal, but he has developed abilities that often go in a different direction than sheer animal evolution.

No, It’s just ”sheer animal evolution”, just of a different order...as per the advanced animals, including Homo sapiens, are of a vastly different order than the amoeba which were the common ancestor for all of us. It’s all animal evolution.

These capacities - especially social learning - can be used for good or bad. They produce things as amazingly good such as vaccines and as surprisingly bad such as torture by sensory deprivation. I believe that the human being has the ability to choose between good and bad, and we call that choice moral and say that it is a free activity to distinguish it from others that are biologically determined.

Humans too are largely biologically determined. There is no evidence there exists this thing called "free-will", outside of our ability to understand our own conscious thought processes. It's this underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action that is the problem for free will.

Thus we distinguish the sexuality that leads a bonobo to continuously practice sex from the restrictions that human beings establish in their dealings with the other sex. If you don't want to call "free" an activity that doesn't have a certain causal sequence, call it what you want, but you should name it in some way. I simply say that morality consists of our freedom to choose what we believe to be good or bad.

The bonobos too would have the illusion of freely choosing between good and bad.

 

[Tassman]

Are you?

Yes. I’m merely observing what is.

I agree, being social animals is in the self interest of the individual, but being social animals is not just cooperation and altruism, those are just a small part of it. It entails much more.

What it entails as a social species is the maintenance of social order. This is achieved by certain rules of expected behaviour and dominant group members enforcing order through punishment. Among higher order primates (including Homo sapiens) there is also a sense of altruism and reciprocity. Chimpanzees remember who did them favours and who wronged them and are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously groomed them.

How do you decide which parts of human nature are bad and to be discouraged and which are good and to be encouraged?

Behaviour which is destructive to social cohesion is deemed bad and vice versa

I don't think you can do this using science. You do seem to be making a value judgement.

It’s not using science at all other than the recognition, as shown by science, that we have evolved as a social species upon which our survival as a species depends

 

[David Mo]

No I don’t think so. Human cooperation is of the same order as that of chimpanzees but a more advanced version of it, given the much greater intelligence of humans.

All of this is true, but again I think it is accounted for by the greater human intelligence. Unlike the chimps, humans are not locked into the primate sociability of our origins. Humans have the wherewithal to develop and change. Although, I would suggest that primitive man around the time of the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees was not much different from his simian cousins.

OK. I agree. Those against the morality of the flock can often be the trailblazers of social change, e.g. Martin Luther King or Gandhi.


No, I do not recognise that culture is something independent of nature, merely that humans have the intelligence to build and grow upon what went before. The lesser primates do not. It’s all nature.



No, It’s just ”sheer animal evolution”, just of a different order...as per the advanced animals, including Homo sapiens, are of a vastly different order than the amoeba which were the common ancestor for all of us. It’s all animal evolution.



Humans too are largely biologically determined. There is no evidence there exists this thing called "free-will", outside of our ability to understand our own conscious thought processes. It's this underlying unconscious process of choosing that determines the choice that is made conscious in the form of thought and action that is the problem for free will.

You agree that true altruism doesn’t exist in natural species. You agree that human culture is above natural impulses. You agree that morality doesn’t exist in natural species. You even point to human intelligence as the cause of all this.
But you continue claiming that human behaviour — morality and the UDHR included— is determined by nature. I don’t understand you.

There is a unanimous consensus in psychology and anthropology that the forces that are above or opposite to nature are called culture. In general, they are not attributed only to the superior intelligence of humans —although this is a major factor— but a complex of capacities that also included higher learning, creativity or abstract language.

It seems that you maintain that human culture is a “different order” to animal “culture” but is "the same order". You contradict yourself. If human culture produce things that doesn’t exist in nature it is a “different order”, not the same. What is at stake in the controversy between anthropologists and biologicists is whether some features of human behaviour can be product of the evolution of similar animal abilities or not. But nobody can seriously believe in the identity of “order” between cultural and natural. Except you, perhaps.

About free will: when determinists are able to identify the whole series of causes of human acts, when determinists are be able to explain human behaviour as an outcome of deterministic laws and produce exact predictions, freedom would be excluded of social explanations. For the moment, we cannot foresee this situation and I will continue to speak of free acts when I make up my mind in a conscious way to answer you comments.