Does Morality Presuppose Good and Evil?

[qayak]

Science absolutely has something to say about morality.

If you search this forum for RandFan and morality you will find that I have maintained that for a very, very long time. You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my philosophy of morality. Further it is demonstrable that you hold a completely spurious belief about my philosophy (see previous post).

That said,

Shermer demonstrates why reason can and will likely ultimately lead most if not all groups to the same moral fundamentals because we are all mostly wired the same. I agree with this.

However, Shermer concedes that these are his principles. Not everyone shares Shermers principles. We can, using reason, adopt Shermers principles and denounce the Spartans for leaving their lame children to the elements to die. However, given the culture and exigencies of the lives of the Spartans Shermer would conclude that for them their actions were moral.

Now, if our brains were wired to kill lame children, like many animals do then that WOULD be moral by this logic. Saying something is moral simply because it is in our genes is a naturalistic fallacy.

Shermer isn't telling us what OUGHT to be moral he is telling us why we ARE moral.

FWIW, my views on morality are very close to Shermer's. That said, Shermer hasn't discovered any immutable laws of morality. He is simply explaining why perceive as moral that which is moral and why, if we use reason rather than superstition we will act, mostly, in universal ways.

(Highlighting in your quote, mine.) Shermer tells us not only why we are moral but why we are immoral and then he proposes a better system of morality for us to examine.

"The bright torch of science illuminates the darkness of humanity to reveal a human nature that is both moral and immoral, a product of our evolutionary heritage and our cultural history. We can construct a provisional ethical system that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative, a more universal and tolerant morality that enhances the probability of the survival and well-being of all members of the species, and perhaps eventually of all species and even the biosphere, the only home we have ever known or will ever know until science leads us off the planet, out of the solar system and to the stars. Ad astra!" (pg.263)

To say that Shermer says science has little to say about morality is to completely misrepresent him. He uses the newest scientific knowledge to come to conclusions on many, many moral issues, just as Sagan and Druyan did. Have you ever read Sagan's and Druyan's discussion of abortion? That is a prime example of science having a great deal to say on morality.

The entire problem with morality based on religious dogma, is the fact that religions haven't changed in thousands of years. No new saviours, no new prophets, no knew ideas, no new . . . anything. Same old ideas holding back the advancement of human morality.

Science is new. Well, maybe not science but all the things science has discovered are new and Shermer bases his new morality on these discoveries, just as Sagan, Feynman, Dawkins, etc., have done before. If that isn't science having something to say about morality, I don't know what would be.

 

[RandFan]

To say that Shermer says science has little to say about morality is to completely misrepresent him.

Why do you do this? It's dishonest. Please stop it.

ETA: If you continue in this vain then I'm going to put you on ignore.

 

[Lonewulf]

Why do you do this? It's dishonest. Please stop it.

ETA: If you continue in this vain then I'm going to put you on ignore.

Whoa, Randfan. I'm surprised. I think this is the first time I've witness you threaten to put someone else on ignore, and I've seen you at lengthy debates with more annoying people.

Though witnessing the discussion, I don't entirely blame you...

Either way, from a truly objective, non-human, non-animal viewpoint, morality is meaningless. Humans are to the earth the same as bacteria are for nutrients, or a sun is to the planets when it goes supernova or turns into a gas giant. We're just bits of matter interacting with other bits of matter. Yeah, sure, we're "intelligent" matter, but objectively, that's meaningless. The only things that give meaning to that is this thinking matter, making them automatically biased.

"Morality" means something for humans thanks to human desire and impulses, but nothing written in stone makes any bit of that morality into "true objectivity". Nothing makes one culture automatically right, and the other culture automatically wrong. Claims to the contrary usually just seem to be people trying to justify a claim of, "I'm right, and you're wrong! So there!"

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why do you do this? It's dishonest. Please stop it.

I'm with ya' bro.

 

[RandFan]

Whoa, Randfan. I'm surprised. I think this is the first time I've witness you threaten to put someone else on ignore, and I've seen you at lengthy debates with more annoying people.

I expect more from qayak.

Though witnessing the discussion, I don't entirely blame you...

Either way, from a truly objective, non-human, non-animal viewpoint, morality is meaningless. Humans are to the earth the same as bacteria are for nutrients, or a sun is to the planets when it goes supernova or turns into a gas giant. We're just bits of matter interacting with other bits of matter. Yeah, sure, we're "intelligent" matter, but objectively, that's meaningless. The only things that give meaning to that is this thinking matter, making them automatically biased.

"Morality" means something for humans thanks to human desire and impulses, but nothing written in stone makes any bit of that morality into "true objectivity". Nothing makes one culture automatically right, and the other culture automatically wrong. Claims to the contrary usually just seem to be people trying to justify a claim of, "I'm right, and you're wrong! So there!"

Agreed. However we can understand morality from a biological POV. It helps understand why we are moral and gives us reason why we might want to adopt certain moral principles.

 

[Lonewulf]

Agreed. However we can understand morality from a biological POV. It helps understand why we are moral and gives us reason why we might want to adopt certain moral principles.

I don't disagree at all.

To respond to the OP (considering that I want to answer the core question): I wouldn't call people "evil" or "good". And one person's "evil" is another person's "good". I mean, some people are disgusted at vigilantism. Personally, I think there's times where vigilantism is a good thing (notably, when there is no law to settle disputes), but only to a certain point. And I would rather there be law than be vigilantism. So I consider it the worse of the choices, but I wouldn't consider vigilantism to be "evil".

I would avoid "evil" and "good", honestly. If I use those terms, it's because I want to use a very very simple word to explain something very very complex. I mean, I could say "The universe is big", which is true, but a simple statement explaining something complex; but in normal conversation, that's perfectly fine. I think that there are multiple things that make an individual what they are; genetics (nature), mixed with nurture. Not all of us are born the same, and not all of us have the same make-up or background. Thus, someone that does something that we would consider "evil" are usually coming from a totally different viewpoint and background than we do; so judgment is hard to make without actual bias.

Now, to respond to your post, yes, of course there's a reason for Morality, as we see it, to exist. It exists, and almost everything seems to have a cause, so therefore, I can conclude that morality stems from something. All cultures have a sense of morality, and I can't think of a single truly "immoral" culture in existance; it's just that one culture's "morality" doesn't always jive with another culture's. Thus, of course there's an explanation out there.

Exploring those reasons are perfectly fine.

I'd say more, but I'm getting to be very tired. Really late here.

I'm going to bed. Night.