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

[David Mo]

Male Homo sapiens also cause the death of others. So what’s your point?

See my previous comments, please.

 

[Tassman]

We have been over this, I'm not understanding you.

The interests of the group comes secondary to the individuals self interest, it is a secondary effect and arises only because the self interest of the individual alines with that of the group. The individual is exploiting the group for it's own benefit. It is not a zero sum game though, both the group and the individual benefit.E]

It is a primary effect. No group involvement = no benefits to the individual.
We are by nature a species that lives in groups.

Since there is no mechanism for evolution and natural selection to operate on the group level, cooperation evolved solely for the benefit of the individual.

Nonsense! We have evolved to operate on the group level. We are by nature a social species. By definition this means we are creatures that are greatly interactive with other members of our species, with our individual success highly dependent on the overall cohesion and propagation of the group.

Since evolution operates on the individual level, not the group, any individuals putting the interests of group above their own will be selected against and removed from the population. Natural selection guarantees that the individual will cheat the group/members of the group as often as it can get away with it.

See above.

How ridiculous, divine revelation, really? How do you come up with this?
Literally everything I have written to you explains how morals originate due to evolution and natural selection.

See above.

The mistake you are making seems to be in assuming that the interests of the group supersede those of the individual. That is impossible. It cannot happen, ever, not via evolution and natural selection, not in primates.

You are the one who mistakenly thinks you can devise a single morality based on evolution and natural selection, is this correct? Looks like you decided "cooperation with the group is good" and "putting your self interest above that of the group is bad."

You are wrong. Sorry:

"Social species are genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals. Humans can be considered a social species because we tend to live in communities instead of segregating ourselves as individuals and dispersing to unoccupied territory. In many species, a family unit, meaning parents and their immediate dependent young, groups together and follows particular guidelines of interaction. However, this does not qualify as a society. A society must be composed of more individuals than are contained in a family unit."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/social-animals

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Tassman, here is the God, I believe in!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12195347&postcount=326

Relevant to behavior, to kill another human is a natural, physical and biological behavior. It can be described in such terms, but can't be describe as being done by "a social misfit". The problem is the is-ought distinction and that can't be solved using science. In the end that is where you fail. Both "good" and "bad" are natural, physical and biological behavior, but you can't give evidence for good and bad using science.

With regards

 

[Tassman]

The problem with supporters of natural morality is that they ought to accept violence and brutal relations of power in the same package. Nature is Nature for better or worse. If you choose one or another your choice is out of Nature.

What's the alternative to "natural morality"?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What's the alternative to "natural morality"?

What are the alternatives to "natural morality"?

With regards

 

[Tassman]

Tassman, here is the God, I believe in!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12195347&postcount=326

Interesting world view. Would you describe yourself a Deist?

Relevant to behavior, to kill another human is a natural, physical and biological behavior. It can be described in such terms, but can't be describe as being done by "a social misfit". The problem is the is-ought distinction and that can't be solved using science. In the end that is where you fail. Both "good" and "bad" are natural, physical and biological behavior, but you can't give evidence for good and bad using science.

I haven't attempted to do that. The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we have evolved to live among other human beings. This is all science can tell us. And if we are to do so in a successful way, there are certain basic principles that must apply, if we are to expect them agree on a set of “rules of the game”.

With regards

And to you.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Interesting world view. Would you describe yourself a Deist?

No, I am an adeist!

I haven't attempted to do that. The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we have evolved to live among other human beings. This is all science can tell us. And if we are to do so in a successful way, there are certain basic principles that must apply, if we are to expect them agree on a set of “rules of the game”.

There are no single set of basic principles or only one set of “rules of the game”.
It is possible to have a different set of principles than you and still be an atheist. The only thing atheists have in common, are that they are atheists.
That is what you don't understand.

With regards

 

[Cheetah]

It is a primary effect. No group involvement = no benefits to the individual.
We are by nature a species that lives in groups.

Wrong!
Evolution cannot operate on the group/species level.
Please explain how that is possible.

We have evolved to operate on the group level. We are by nature a social species. By definition this means we are creatures that are greatly interactive with other members of our species, with our individual success highly dependent on the overall cohesion and propagation of the group.

True to a degree, but in self interest, as I explained. Evolution cannot operate on the group/species level. It is a fact. Please prove otherwise, give me a single example of any primate that, when on it's own, out of sight of the group, won't attempt to selfishly exploit a food source, but will alert the group and share it.

"Social species are genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals. Humans can be considered a social species because we tend to live in communities instead of segregating ourselves as individuals and dispersing to unoccupied territory. In many species, a family unit, meaning parents and their immediate dependent young, groups together and follows particular guidelines of interaction. However, this does not qualify as a society. A society must be composed of more individuals than are contained in a family unit."

Nothing here contradicts anything I said.

Read this:

The evolution of altruistic social preferences in human groups

Current evidence suggests that chimpanzees (and other great apes) cooperate in a number of contexts, but do not have robust preferences for outcomes that benefit others. 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. However, it is important to acknowledge that this characterization may not be completely accurate. One major shortcoming of all the experimental studies of social preferences on non-human primates is that they are conducted on captive animals in laboratory settings. Efforts to devise more naturalistic experiments which could be conducted in both wild and captive settings would be very valuable.

Research done under natural conditions show the following:
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.

This is explained by kin selection.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It is a primary effect. No group involvement = no benefits to the individual.
We are by nature a species that lives in groups.
...

Your problem is this:
You accept that a single individual can work against the group and not that the group can work against the individual.
Further you ignore "strong man" groups and think that there are only egalitarian groups.

And when that is brought up, you claim it means that we are religious. Your last line of defense is that your atheism and world view is the only non-religious world view possible and all other world views therefore must be religious.

Added: You are in sense dogmatic and an moral/ethical objectivist and realist when it comes to morality and ethics. You deny cognitive and moral relativism and claim all other moral systems are religious. You don't know what moral anti-realism entails.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
Research done under natural conditions show the following:
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.

This is explained by kin selection.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...d-ancient-leaders-including-Genghis-Khan.html

So war pays!!! Good to be the Khan, when it comes to breeding.

 

[Cheetah]

So war pays!!! Good to be the Khan, when it comes to breeding.

From your link:

16 million men are thought to be directly descended from Genghis Khan.

Wow, that is just incredible.

 

[David Mo]

What's the alternative to "natural morality"?

What are the alternatives to "natural morality"?

With regards

Of course, there are many. If you ask me what I prefer my answer wouldn't be simple. I suggest a mixed of emotional morality, dialogical morality and political action. For the first I sugger a reading of Hume; Habermas or Rawls for the second; and the third is a personal elaboration. I cannot expound this now. But I can come back on the subject if it interest you.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Of course, there are many. If you ask me what I prefer my answer wouldn't be simple. I suggest a mixed of emotional morality, dialogical morality and political action. For the first I sugger a reading of Hume; Habermas or Rawls for the second; and the third is a personal elaboration. I cannot expound this now. But I can come back on the subject if it interest you.

Well, I am properly a lot like you, but since I am Danish I would also add a Scandinavian. Knud Ejler Løgstrup.
I have this part of me, I like phenomenology and other variants of how to explain reality as a human experience/condition.
Further since my wife is a social worker, I have been exposed to a lot of practical applications of morality/ethics in asymmetrical one to one human interaction. And because I have a psychiatric disorder myself, I have experiences of being on the receiving of both normal humans and the welfare state.

There is a joke about social workers in the Scandinavian sense. For someone like me it goes like this: Show me your(special needs person) closet and clothes and I shall tell you, how and who your social worker is.

So I have a bias against any one system of correct behavior, because it tends to stigmatize my kind as the "social misfits" or what not.
And as a skeptic I don't believe in any strong justification of morality and ethics only using the strong version of being rational and using evidence/proof or indeed Truth.

Yes, we can make a thread, if you like.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I pay my bills with patriotically-themed personalized checks. Is that what you mean?

Yep! Provided they don't bounce.

And if I wrote one to NAMBLA?

 

[Tassman]

And if I wrote one to NAMBLA?

The fact that your cheque doesn't bounce conforms to societal values, the fact that it was to NAMBLA doesn't.

 

[Tassman]

The evolution of altruistic social preferences in human groups

Research done under natural conditions show the following:
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.

This is explained by kin selection.

Yes, of course it is.

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.

 

[Tassman]

Of course, there are many. If you ask me what I prefer my answer wouldn't be simple. I suggest a mixed of emotional morality, dialogical morality and political action. For the first I sugger a reading of Hume; Habermas or Rawls for the second; and the third is a personal elaboration. I cannot expound this now. But I can come back on the subject if it interest you.

All of the above are of interest. But my only point throughout is that ANY moral system is based upon our evolution as a cooperative, altruistic social species. This is the starting point for any moral system and must take into account the interactions that occur between individuals when they form simple aggregations, cooperate in sexual or parental behaviour, engage in disputes over territory or mates, or simply communicate with each other. To facilitate all of this is surely is the only purpose for a moral code.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

All of the above are of interest. But my only point throughout is that ANY moral system is based upon our evolution as a cooperative, altruistic social species. This is the starting point for any moral system and must take into account the interactions that occur between individuals when they form simple aggregations, cooperate in sexual or parental behaviour, engage in disputes over territory or mates, or simply communicate with each other. To facilitate all of this is surely is the only purpose for a moral code.

I urge you to at least read introductions on the morality/ethics of David Hume, Jürgen Habermas, John Rawls and Knud Ejler Løgstrup.
Now if you do, look for what they have in common and compare that with what you say and then be critical of the notion of a social misfit; i.e how do we know that there are social misfits and how should we treat them if we apply the combination of the above writers.

With regards

 

[David Mo]

But my only point throughout is that ANY moral system is based upon our evolution as a cooperative, altruistic social species.

Any moral system is based on evolution, because man is a product of evolution. But man is also the product of cultural learning. There are many diverse moralities because morality is not natural, but cultural. 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.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

All of the above are of interest. But my only point throughout is that ANY moral system is based upon our evolution as a cooperative, altruistic social species. This is the starting point for any moral system and must take into account the interactions that occur between individuals when they form simple aggregations, cooperate in sexual or parental behaviour, engage in disputes over territory or mates, or simply communicate with each other. To facilitate all of this is surely is the only purpose for a moral code.

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.
That is your problem. 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?
Do you see the problem now?

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.
As David Mo pointed out it is a question of culture, what we learn. Not that we can learn as humans, that is biology.
And again if you want to reason for/use intelligence to achieve it, it is to simple just to say that human rights are good, because you need a cultural practice in order to implement that.

With regards