Materealism and morality

[IMST]

I know. My post was a reply to "Hey JetLeg. How can any cosmology provide a basis for morality? ". I gave an example of two conflicting ideas - solipsism and realism, one of which doesn't provide a basis for morality, and the other one does.

But doesn't this negate your whole premise? You claim realism provides a basis for morality simply because it recognizes the existance of other people, but materialism has the same recognition.

 

[Third Eye Open]

I know. My post was a reply to "Hey JetLeg. How can any cosmology provide a basis for morality? ". I gave an example of two conflicting ideas - solipsism and realism, one of which doesn't provide a basis for morality, and the other one does.

What do those things have to do with cosmology?

 

[JetLeg]

But doesn't this negate your whole premise? You claim realism provides a basis for morality simply because it recognizes the existance of other people, but materialism has the same recognition.

Eh... I was wrong.

I should have said that realism is a neccessary basis for morality, but an insufficient one. Recognizing the existance of other people is a neccessary basis for morality but an insufficient one. (Nazis were realists).

If solipsism is true, then morality is false.
If materealism is true then morality is false.

(And forgive me for using the bad expression "morality is false")

 

[JetLeg]

What do those things have to do with cosmology?

Not much, but materealism and monism don't have much to with it as well.

Mister-agenda asked how can any cosmology provide a basis for morality while I was not talking of a cosmology but of a philosophy.

But I thought I understood where he is coming from based on the latter part of the post, so I answered according to the rest of his post.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Eh... I was wrong.

I should have said that realism is a neccessary basis for morality, but an insufficient one. Recognizing the existance of other people is a neccessary basis for morality but an insufficient one. (Nazis were realists).

If solipsism is true, then morality is false.
If materealism is true then morality is false.

(And forgive me for using the bad expression "morality is false")

I'm not sure I can forgive you, since you seem to be using 'morality' to mean 'a set of morals I agree with' since the Nazis most assuredly had a set of morals.

 

[godless dave]

Living things have feelings, desires, and fears. Inanimate things don't.

Also, it's spelled "materialism".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Materialism most certainly can provide a foundation for morality.

We evolved as complex animals living in very complex societies. A sense of morality (which I personally believe is related to a number of other adaptive mental traits) would have been a highly advantageous adaptation. So much so, that I'd bet any population of proto-humans without it would have disappeared.

 

[Third Eye Open]

If materealism is true then morality is false.

I really have no idea where you are coming from with this.

What is so confusing about empathy that there has to be something 'magic' about it?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

There is overwhelming evidence that Natural Selection selects for co-operation. Game Theory proves co-operation is the best survival technique.

Animals (and even some plants) co-operate in their tribes, herds, flocks, schools and murders (of crows).

We are animals -- driven by a few billion years of evolution.

And the TRUTH shall set you free!

 

[JetLeg]

Living things have feelings, desires, and fears. Inanimate things don't.

Also, it's spelled "materialism".

Define "feelings", "desires", "fears" using the language of physics.

According to materialism, only the physical world exists. So define your terms using atoms, molecules, and et cetera.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks, JetLeg. Maybe cosmology wasn't the right word, but it seems dualism and materialism are claims about the nature of the universe and I lack the philosophical vocabulary to be more precise without being much more wordy.

I think where we're missing each other though, is the word 'basis'. If you are a dualist, how does that mere fact lead you to a particular morality? If it can be a basis for morality, wouldn't all dualists arrive at similar moral conclusions distinguishable from those arrived at by materialists?

 

[Third Eye Open]

Define "feelings", "desires", "fears" using the language of physics.

According to materialism, only the physical world exists. So define your terms using atoms, molecules, and et cetera.

So you believe in magic on the basis of semantics?

 

[Mister Agenda]

Define "feelings", "desires", "fears" using the language of physics.

According to materialism, only the physical world exists. So define your terms using atoms, molecules, and et cetera.

The et cetera would naturally include cells, organisms, evolution, and behavior wouldn't it? If not, why not? From the tack you are taking I would have to deduce that you believe computers have a nonmaterial component since we have to resort to words like 'programs' and 'data' to explain them.

 

[godless dave]

Define "feelings", "desires", "fears" using the language of physics.

According to materialism, only the physical world exists. So define your terms using atoms, molecules, and et cetera.

Animal brains are physcial objects, made up of molecules of various chemicals. They react to physical stimuli.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Materealism cannot provide a logical foundation for morality.

This is because for morality to happen, one needs to be able to draw a line between people, who should be treated morally, and inanimate objects that shouldn't.

Since materealism is a monistic system, it cannot draw this line.


The criteria of complexity is ridiculous - a human being is more complex than a stone, true. But a robot, in theory can be as complex than a human being. Still, it won't make him an object of morality. (Remember Asimov's first law?). The universe as a whole can be said to be as complex as a human being. Yet, it is not a moral object. (Moral object = an object that should be treated morally).

Replication is also a bad criteria - crystals are not an object of morality. Neither are computer viruses. Or memes. Or robots that can build other robots.


In fairness, any monistic system faces this problem, not just materealism. Systems that believe that "only spirit exists", or "everything is one", or "everything is god" have exactly the same problem. They are unable to draw the line.


----
To clarify, that was a philosophical point. I do not think that monists are less moral than non-monists, and that materealists are less moral than non-materealists. I do not know why this is so. But the facts show it is.

So many false premises, where to begin.

Humans are able to draw a line between people, who should be treated morally, and inanimate objects that shouldn't.

Humans determine morality.

Morality evolved as part of our human behavioral component. We are gregarious. We rely on the group for better chance of survival.

One can demonstrate the biological nature of behavior (genetic and physical) by its absence with specific brain deficits, its presence in very young children, and certain commonalities throughout the entire human species. The precursors to human moral behavior can be observed in animals especially non-human primates.

One can demonstrate the nurture (experience) component of morality by its alteration in specific learning environments such as the effects on the individual later in life of early childhood abuse. One can demonstrate the effect of learning and culture on morality.

Humans determine morality individually.

If there was some universal morality, other than where we overlap in nature and nurture (genetics and experiences), then there would be universal moral truths, and there are not.

And finally, there is no evidence morality only occurs when a person learns moral rules. There is evidence it is inherent in childhood decision making as early as preschool.

 

[Third Eye Open]

Define "feelings", "desires", "fears" using the language of physics.

According to materialism, only the physical world exists. So define your terms using atoms, molecules, and et cetera.

Also: Adrenaline and dopamine. I don't know the molecules they are made of, but they are made of molecules indeed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Animal brains are physcial objects, made up of molecules of various chemicals. They react to physical stimuli.

Exactly.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is overwhelming evidence that Natural Selection selects for co-operation. Game Theory proves co-operation is the best survival technique.

Animals (and even some plants) co-operate in their tribes, herds, flocks, schools and murders (of crows).

We are animals -- driven by a few billion years of evolution.

Exactly!

As an aside, some of the other pretty impressive mental traits humans have developed as adaptations to living in very complex social groups include: language, ability and tendency for pattern recognition (especially face recognition), ability and tendency to infer agency and intention, and so on.

Morality I think has a lot of overlap with language. A couple of similarities: that both include a hard-wired capability and a conventional component; and that there are some universals and a lot of other variations.

I also think moral philosophy and logic in general is a sort of side effect of language.

Some other animals exhibit proto-language and proto-morality, but it's only when you operate in the symbolic realm--semiotics--that this stuff gets so agonizing. Other animals might have some rudimentary sense of right and wrong--especially social ones--but they don't create abstract norms and hypothetical situations that challenge those norms.

I think it was Carl Sagan that proposed the interpretation of the Garden of Eden story as the story of becoming human. It's only when we've got the higher functions (language and so on) that we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil--and were condemned to painful childbirth (because of our bigger brains), awareness of our own mortality, and so on. No more blissful ignorance for us once we ate the forbidden fruit.

T.S. Eliot wrote, "After such knowledge, what forgiveness?" (Gerontion)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, notice that I did not use the word "religion" even once. I am talking about monistic systems.

And, I think that the way religion distinguishes people from objects ("soul") is not a good way. "Consciousness" is much a better term.

Second, I am interested in your basis of distinguishing people from objects.

So you believe morals are magically instilled in our brains? Does morality float around in space? Where does it come from?

 

[JetLeg]

Thanks, JetLeg. Maybe cosmology wasn't the right word, but it seems dualism and materialism are claims about the nature of the universe and I lack the philosophical vocabulary to be more precise without being much more wordy.

I think where we're missing each other though, is the word 'basis'. If you are a dualist, how does that mere fact lead you to a particular morality? If it can be a basis for morality, wouldn't all dualists arrive at similar moral conclusions distinguishable from those arrived at by materialists?

Ok.

What I mean by "basis" is that dualism is a necessary condition for morality.