The Future of Moral Science

[Pup]

Family and tribe are circumscribed by genetics (genetic "closeness" - forget the technical term); or to put it another way, biology gives a basis that's non-stretchable in and of itself.

Evidence? People love and protect pets, yet they're clearly not genetically related.

We have a basic sense of "us" and "them," but I don't see that it's circumscribed by genetics. And if it is, well, all humans are genetically related anyway.

The motivation to stretch beyond the boundary would be the same as ever: survival. If you turn a formerly hostile "other" tribe into a trading partner and ally, the chance of your tribe members surviving is increased, because they have fewer enemies wanting to kill them and more to help them.

 

[gurugeorge]

Evidence? People love and protect pets, yet they're clearly not genetically related.

Pets fall under instrumental reasoning.

Evidence is just all the evidence pointing to kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, etc. We can be pretty sure that basis is there and evolved naturally. But it's hard to see how you can have an explanation based on natural selection that would select for morality beyond kin and the kind of close group co-operation that enables a degree of altruism to function to further mere reproductive fitness for the individuals comprising the group.

We have a basic sense of "us" and "them," but I don't see that it's circumscribed by genetics. And if it is, well, all humans are genetically related anyway.

I don't think genetics is sensitive enough beyond a certain degree of relation - it's hard to see how there could be a mechanism to select for that kind of distant relationship. At that point, strategies to compete are just as salient.

IOW, it pays to be genuinely moral, not defect, and it pays for a moral code to be mutually enforced, within the group that co-operates closely and has lots of kin relation. But beyond that group, it pays just as much to pretend to be moral, but cheat and exploit whenever you can. There's no driver in terms of benefits for reproductive fitness beyond the tribe (small group level).

The motivation to stretch beyond the boundary would be the same as ever: survival. If you turn a formerly hostile "other" tribe into a trading partner and ally, the chance of your tribe members surviving is increased, because they have fewer enemies wanting to kill them and more to help them.

But we find competition, often violent competition, just as viable for reproductive fitness, beyond the tribe level. Where the impact on reproductive fitness is diffuse, then you have mixed strategies that co-operate when suitable, and defect when the actor thinks they can get away with it - there's no clear moral pattern there.

Remember, with all evolutionary explanations, the driver is, and can only be, reproductive fitness - an actor's surviving long enough to reproduce - and while that does indeed seem to be enough to give us that basis in kin altruism and reciprocal altruism with family and tribe, it's too thin gruel to make strategies consistently moral beyond that level.

 

[Tassman]

I don't see what those have to do with the issue. Either by "society" one means "the collection of individuals", in which case the well-being of society is just shorthand for the several well-being of the collection of individuals; or by society one means the abstraction, in which case there's no issue of its well-being.

There’s nothing complicated about what is meant by “society” - you're making problems where none exist. "Society" is a structured system of organization that provides protection, continuity and security for the individuals within it. It’s what defines a social species. It exists in a simple way among the other primates and in a more complex way, thanks to our higher intelligence, among us Homo sapiens.

Yes of course, but there was no reason why such a thing should have ever come about, even though the potential, the "free-floating rationale" (the possibility of such chemical and biological processes occurring with such a result) was always there in the way matter is structured.

But it did come about didn't it so there is little more to be said.

I think it's insufficient (please see my response to pup above).

I disagree. You’re giving insufficient attention to the instincts generated by our genetic predisposition for social cohesion and all-important social acculturation and, unlike our less intelligent simian cousins, the demonstrable ability to transform society over time. E.g. modern urban societies are far removed from the Hunter/Gatherers of the Paleolithic era - even though they are biologically the same species.

Uh, yes, sure, what's that got to do with anything? I never claimed feeling part of the whole wasn't a natural by-product of the brain! So is uttering "1+1=2" a natural by-product of the brain, that doesn't stop it being true. So is listening to Beethoven a natural by-product of the brain; that doesn't stop it being a glorious experience shared by many, many people.

Beware of nothing buttery! It's not the friend it seems

Well you appear to be appear to be promoting “mysticism” and “spiritually” as being something over and above the natural functioning of the material brain.

The point I was trying to make is that the seemingly spiritual sense of being a “part of the whole” is illusory. Your argument has the feel of New Age woo about it. But of course, “I mean that in the nicest possible way”, as Edna Everage would say.

In the vague sense of "village" and "tribe" yes; but also, through the means I'm talking about, not on the basis of biology or instrumental reasoning alone.

As I see it, once you've ruled out biological instincts and reasoning ability you've run out of options.

Re. "spirituality", it depends on what connotations you freight the term with, I'm explaining mine ambulando.

I don't know what you mean by “ambulando”. Please explain.

 

[Pup]

Pets fall under instrumental reasoning.

Evidence is just all the evidence pointing to kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, etc. We can be pretty sure that basis is there and evolved naturally. But it's hard to see how you can have an explanation based on natural selection that would select for morality beyond kin and the kind of close group co-operation that enables a degree of altruism to function to further mere reproductive fitness for the individuals comprising the group.

There are lots of things that have a specific usefulness for reproduction, but which get "sloppy" and wind up applied more broadly. I mean, before DNA testing, how do you know someone is truly kin and not adopted? Yet a baby raised as a sibling of another baby would surely behave as if they're siblings, so it's not truly genetics driving the behavior; it's the social relationships that are typical of genetics.

A couple examples are:

Sex. People still want to have a sexual climax even when it can't result in offspring--menopausal women, masturbation, with farm animals, etc. Once we've evolved to find sex good, we're not too picky.

Compassion based on identifying with others. If it hurts me, it must hurt you, so I shouldn't do it. That sort of belief helps hold society together. But it goes so far afield that people can even imagine what inanimate objects must be feeling and feel sympathy for them, in animated cartoons, puppet shows, stuffed animals, etc.

But we find competition, often violent competition, just as viable for reproductive fitness, beyond the tribe level. Where the impact on reproductive fitness is diffuse, then you have mixed strategies that co-operate when suitable, and defect when the actor thinks they can get away with it - there's no clear moral pattern there.

Exactly. It's sloppy. If a breeding male has a competitive drive, he could kill other males even in his tribe and have even better reproductive success, and one sees that sort of behavior used successfully in certain situations, usually anciently with kings who want to maintain power.

Remember, with all evolutionary explanations, the driver is, and can only be, reproductive fitness - an actor's surviving long enough to reproduce - and while that does indeed seem to be enough to give us that basis in kin altruism and reciprocal altruism with family and tribe, it's too thin gruel to make strategies consistently moral beyond that level.

That sounds more like an argument for my side. I'm not saying every encounter with another tribe ends in cooperation, just that it's one of many reproductive strategies that can't be ruled out.

There are so many competing urges that it's virtually impossible to predict which will win out in any given situation, and the only way to judge which one is "right," is to see which is successful in hindsight, unless one can apply a complex scientific predictive model of the optimum behavior for reproductive success, as is being discussed in this thread.

 

[gurugeorge]

There’s nothing complicated about what is meant by “society” - you're making problems where none exist. "Society" is a structured system of organization that provides protection, continuity and security for the individuals within it. It’s what defines a social species. It exists in a simple way among the other primates and in a more complex way, thanks to our higher intelligence, among us Homo sapiens.

You're right, it's pretty tangential to our main argument and I don't want to go into it too much, but I find "social well-being" rather than "well-being" or "human well-being" is what makes problems where none exist. The term social in this context either adds nothing or is irrelevant.

Or to put it another way, unless your interest is in the perpetuation of the "structured system or organization ... etc" in and of itself, then the term "social" isn't really doing anything, because I'd hazard that (like most people, I should think) what you're really interested in is the well-being of this person, that person, etc., etc., right on through to all the people that live and are ordinary, decent human beings; and the "structured system or organization" is only worth perpetuating, or even mentioning, insofar as it helps the several well-being of all those real people.

I disagree. You’re giving insufficient attention to the instincts generated by our genetic predisposition for social cohesion and all-important social acculturation and, unlike our less intelligent simian cousins, the demonstrable ability to transform society over time. E.g. modern urban societies are far removed from the Hunter/Gatherers of the Paleolithic era - even though they are biologically the same species.

I am giving attention to that aspect of things, and I think it's part of the explanation, I just find it insufficient on its own to explain morality beyond kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and instrumental reasoning based on those.

Well you appear to be appear to be promoting “mysticism” and “spiritually” as being something over and above the natural functioning of the material brain.

The point I was trying to make is that the seemingly spiritual sense of being a “part of the whole” is illusory. Your argument has the feel of New Age woo about it. But of course, “I mean that in the nicest possible way”, as Edna Everage would say.

Yeah, that's always the problem with my position, I'm in a three-cornered fight. I don't hold the same connotations for "spiritual" and "mystical" as you do, I read them as Sam Harris does, stripped of woo connotations. (and he's in the same three-cornered fight too). IOW, I'm not introducing anything that has any sort of non-rational or non-physicalist explanation. But I don't blame you for holding the connotations you do, it's quite normal and traditional for rationalists, especially on a forum like JREF

That's why I say I'm trying to clarify it "ambulando" - i.e "by walking", in the course of the argument, hopefully my meaning becomes clearer.

As I see it, once you've ruled out biological instincts and reasoning ability you've run out of options.

Well, which of those two does your sense of being a self - i.e. something sort of behind your eyes peeping out of your skull - fall under? Complex mix of both, right? Same with this, what I'm talking about is an alteration in that sense of self-identification (and that's what spirituality and mysticism have actually always been about, but they've been mixed up with other things).

And what I'm saying is that that alteration in the sense of what one feels connection with, where the boundary lies between self and other (IOW, spirituality, mysticism) is what's responsible for those aspects of morality which goes beyond the natural foundation of kin altruism, reciprocal altruism and instrumental reasoning based on these, to give a sense of kinship with all people, and with the cosmos.

Or to put it another way (untestable, but it gets the point across): had it not been for those epiphanies, great and small, historical and in literature, in religion and secular life, there would be no such thing as any form of morality that goes beyond care for self, family and tribe, no morality beyond kin altruism and reciprocal altruism, no sense of universal brotherhood and cosmopolitanism. We would be a different kind of species (maybe, one might say, for amusement's sake, more like Klingons ).

 

[gurugeorge]

There are so many competing urges that it's virtually impossible to predict which will win out in any given situation, and the only way to judge which one is "right," is to see which is successful in hindsight, unless one can apply a complex scientific predictive model of the optimum behavior for reproductive success, as is being discussed in this thread.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, particularly re. the "sloppiness"; but the thing is, if the only operative factor were the effect reproductive fitness has on biology and society we wouldn't expect morality to have progressed and become as dominant as it has.

e.g. re. your points re. orgasm and compassion - sure, there's a sense in which once invented by natural selection, those things can become "free wheeling"; but there would be no reason to expect them to be anything more than random parts of the mix.

Whereas we appear to be more a species that has taken a trajectory that very much emphasises compassion. (i.e. as I pointed out to Tassman, we're not like Klingons).

Actually, in a sense, I am putting the emphasis on something that was invented by natural selection and is now "free wheeling", the only difference is that I'm claiming it's in a subtler area than compassion per se - it's in the area of boundary between self and other, how the brain draws that boundary, its relative nature, etc., etc. Everything to do with spirituality and mysticism, absent their woo aspects, has been to do with that, to do with alterations in the sense of self-identification.

And that's where the push beyond self, family and tribe comes from.

 

[blutoski]

Exactly. It's sloppy. If a breeding male has a competitive drive, he could kill other males even in his tribe and have even better reproductive success, and one sees that sort of behavior used successfully in certain situations, usually anciently with kings who want to maintain power.

I would go so far to say that nothing shortens a lifespan quite like being a prince with an amibitious younger brother.

 

[Tassman]

You're right, it's pretty tangential to our main argument and I don't want to go into it too much, but I find "social well-being" rather than "well-being" or "human well-being" is what makes problems where none exist. The term social in this context either adds nothing or is irrelevant.

Or to put it another way, unless your interest is in the perpetuation of the "structured system or organization ... etc" in and of itself, then the term "social" isn't really doing anything, because I'd hazard that (like most people, I should think) what you're really interested in is the well-being of this person, that person, etc., etc., right on through to all the people that live and are ordinary, decent human beings; and the "structured system or organization" is only worth perpetuating, or even mentioning, insofar as it helps the several well-being of all those real people.

But that’s what I’m saying. We are individuals in a social context and this context needs to be taken into account. “No man is an island entire unto himself…” John Donne. Our "structured system or organization" is intrinsic to who and what we are - namely a social species.

I am giving attention to that aspect of things, and I think it's part of the explanation, I just find it insufficient on its own to explain morality beyond kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and instrumental reasoning based on those.

The facts speak for themselves. Many great powers, themselves merely a collection of disparate tribes in ancient times, are now in alliance for the common good. And this is a trend which seems to be increasing, what with the recognition of 'universal human rights' and the concept of 'crimes against humanity' and various international courts such as the International Court of Justice in the Hague and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc.

Yeah, that's always the problem with my position, I'm in a three-cornered fight. I don't hold the same connotations for "spiritual" and "mystical" as you do, I read them as Sam Harris does, stripped of woo connotations. (and he's in the same three-cornered fight too). IOW, I'm not introducing anything that has any sort of non-rational or non-physicalist explanation. But I don't blame you for holding the connotations you do, it's quite normal and traditional for rationalists, especially on a forum like JREF

That's why I say I'm trying to clarify it "ambulando" - i.e "by walking", in the course of the argument, hopefully my meaning becomes clearer.

As much as I admire Sam Harris I find his attempts (and yours) to use words like ‘spirituality’ and ‘mysticism’ affirmatively, in an attempt to put them on a rational footing, to be futile – like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. As Harris himself has found, introducing these concepts tends to promote confusion rather than clarity IMHO.

Well, which of those two does your sense of being a self - i.e. something sort of behind your eyes peeping out of your skull - fall under? Complex mix of both, right? Same with this, what I'm talking about is an alteration in that sense of self-identification (and that's what spirituality and mysticism have actually always been about, but they've been mixed up with other things).

And what I'm saying is that that alteration in the sense of what one feels connection with, where the boundary lies between self and other (IOW, spirituality, mysticism) is what's responsible for those aspects of morality which goes beyond the natural foundation of kin altruism, reciprocal altruism and instrumental reasoning based on these, to give a sense of kinship with all people, and with the cosmos.

Or to put it another way (untestable, but it gets the point across): had it not been for those epiphanies, great and small, historical and in literature, in religion and secular life, there would be no such thing as any form of morality that goes beyond care for self, family and tribe, no morality beyond kin altruism and reciprocal altruism, no sense of universal brotherhood and cosmopolitanism. We would be a different kind of species (maybe, one might say, for amusement's sake, more like Klingons ).

Well yes it is an “untestable” hypothesis and, I would say, an unwarranted one. I do not see any aspects of morality which go beyond the natural foundation of reciprocal altruism et al. All can be regarded as a natural extension of these evolved qualities.

 

[gurugeorge]

The facts speak for themselves. Many great powers, themselves merely a collection of disparate tribes in ancient times, are now in alliance for the common good. And this is a trend which seems to be increasing, what with the recognition of 'universal human rights' and the concept of 'crimes against humanity' and various international courts such as the International Court of Justice in the Hague and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea etc.

Of course, and that needs explaining, and I don't think kin altruism, reciprocal altruism and instrumental reasoning based on those are enough.

As I said to pup, yes, ultimately it's still a biologically-derived cause, but it's not through any alteration or development of those mechanisms alone, because they're "stuck" at whatever grain natural selection based on genes can react to.

What's doing the trick of "widening the circle" is the (ultimately biologically-derived, but far subtler) process of how the brain distinguishes self from other, and how it can step outside that relative distinction to a more universal perspective.

But I think we've probably both said as much as we can in this sort of conversation. Thanks for the convo, enjoyed it very much!

 

[angrysoba]

It's just amazing how Harris has inflamed so many otherwise smart people into believing what he says. And amazing that it takes millions of man-posts across the internets to argue against his claims.

"Science can decide moral questions" is a category error, for as long as it clearly is (and review of Harris' poor arguments shows he hasn't done anything to dispute this). This isn't, or shouldn't be, complicated or tough to realize.

"Maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures" is a given according to Harris. But science sure as hell didn't say that. Science doesn't give a yarn about any creatures--not their health, not their well-being, not their evolutionary predilections, not any species' continued survival. Science isn't a human mind. Science can't decide morality (see category error). The "debate" should've just been settled after this.

It's remarkable that it wasn't and was/is instead kept on by supposed logical/rational thinkers. I'm a bit reminded of the 2008 election, from Bush to Obama. Many former "progressives" stopped caring about many things Bush did which yet Obama continued. In internet message boards, it was a quick way to determine who was a real liberal or progressive and who was instead in-name-only. Same for after 2002, when Bush did a ton of anti-Conservative stuff, yet "conservatives" still defended his spending and increased government agencies.

And I can't help but think that the same people latching on to Harris' BS are the same sorts that would in the past, and now, latch on to God or Siva or Muhammed as the things that will decide morality. They can't accept that morality is not objective. Not comfortable facing a reality that they need to form their own unique yet equally justifiable [arguments granted against, but not from science] moral view and actions. Or they have a desire that a single thing (science, God, etc.) can answer everything for them. They'd rather be comforted by a higher....well, power for religion, intellect/scientist for Harris I guess (or both for him, he latches on to Buddhism too), telling them what morality should be.

I think there was a question posed weeks ago that I'm not sure was answered: "well, you've eliminated science and philosophy and metaphysics as the basis for morality, so what's left--religion?" My answer is: "There's no 'basis'. Nothing is 'left' because there's no definitive answer. So, sorry--suck it up and form your own views. Not everything has a scientifically quantifiable answer."

+1

 

[Tassman]

Of course, and that needs explaining, and I don't think kin altruism, reciprocal altruism and instrumental reasoning based on those are enough.

I don’t see why not.

As I said to pup, yes, ultimately it's still a biologically-derived cause, but it's not through any alteration or development of those mechanisms alone, because they're "stuck" at whatever grain natural selection based on genes can react to.

Well it seems that our biological instincts are demonstrably not “stuck” because humanity has been developing socially, albeit incrementally, since caveman days - with several transforming events along the way. These include the Scientific Revolution, The Renaissance and the Age of Reason which in turn has resulted in the modern secular world of liberal democracies, equal justice under the law and the expansion of human rights to include ever more people. There’s no reason to think that some non-biological factors were at work in any of this.

What's doing the trick of "widening the circle" is the (ultimately biologically-derived, but far subtler) process of how the brain distinguishes self from other, and how it can step outside that relative distinction to a more universal perspective.

It’s not necessarily a “trick” but more a matter of naturally evolved higher intelligence. Many animals, not just humans, are self aware and capable of distinguishing between themselves and “the other”, e.g. several of the primates, dolphins, whales and elephants et al. But we Homo sapiens are the most intelligent of them all by far (at least until AI entities take over and wipe us all out) and therefore we’re capable of far more complex societies.

But I think we've probably both said as much as we can in this sort of conversation. Thanks for the convo, enjoyed it very much!

Sure and thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it too.

 

[Pup]

Well it seems that our biological instincts are demonstrably not “stuck” because humanity has been developing socially, albeit incrementally, since caveman days - with several transforming events along the way. These include the Scientific Revolution, The Renaissance and the Age of Reason which in turn has resulted in the modern secular world of liberal democracies, equal justice under the law and the expansion of human rights to include ever more people. There’s no reason to think that some non-biological factors were at work in any of this.

I'm curious about the last sentence. I can think of some reasons. One, a few thousand years is awfully fast for biological changes of the sort you're talking about to occur, though not impossible. I guess we're like those domestic Russian foxes?.

Two, the changes are still based on the same urges we've had since even before we were human, according to what primates show: fairness, compassion, etc. So the mix of behaviors has always been there; they're just expressed in different proportions in a violent vs a compassionate society. Are you saying the change in mix is purely biological with no input from socialization? How do you know?

And finally, yes I'm going there. How does this tie into "race"? Are there different environmental pressures that have made people in certain regions, after so many centuries, more naturally violent or more compassionate or more enlightened, and does this correlate with visible physical attributes such as skin color or appearance of people from those regions? The Age of Reason kinda skipped Africa, for example, in part because Europe was too busy trying to subjugate it.

 

[Tassman]

I'm curious about the last sentence. I can think of some reasons. One, a few thousand years is awfully fast for biological changes of the sort you're talking about to occur, though not impossible. I guess we're like those domestic Russian foxes?.

Yes it is and that’s not what I was suggesting. Whilst our biological make-up remains the same our higher intelligence has enabled us to learn from experience and develop, i.e. to make progress and advance. My emphasis on biology was to counter the mystical, non-biological approach that gurugeorge seemed to be promoting.

Two, the changes are still based on the same urges we've had since even before we were human, according to what primates show: fairness, compassion, etc. So the mix of behaviors has always been there; they're just expressed in different proportions in a violent vs a compassionate society. Are you saying the change in mix is purely biological with no input from socialization? How do you know?

I agree entirely that “the changes are still based on the same urges we've had since even before we were human…” And most certainly socialization and acculturation are all important as I have said several times in this thread.

I’m saying the difference between us and the other primates is that our higher intelligence has equipped us to make advances which the lesser primates have not been able to - despite their similar biological urges of fairness and compassion, etc.

And finally, yes I'm going there. How does this tie into "race"?

So brave!

Are there different environmental pressures that have made people in certain regions, after so many centuries, more naturally violent or more compassionate or more enlightened, and does this correlate with visible physical attributes such as skin color or appearance of people from those regions? The Age of Reason kinda skipped Africa, for example, in part because Europe was too busy trying to subjugate it.

Well the ancient Egyptians had a great civilization in Africa as did imperial China in Asia and several other great powers in antiquity such as the Persians or the ancient Greeks and the Aztecs and Incas - all different races – which suggests that favourable converging factors, other than race, were the important components in the rise of civilizations.

As for violent vis-à-vis compassionate societies, surely the totalitarianism one finds in ideologically-based societies – especially religious ideology – is the main factor here. "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics.

 

[Pup]

Yes it is and that’s not what I was suggesting. Whilst our biological make-up remains the same our higher intelligence has enabled us to learn from experience and develop, i.e. to make progress and advance.ggg My emphasis on biology was to counter the mystical, non-biological approach that gurugeorge seemed to be promoting.

Ah, okay. On that we agree. Yes, I think any changes are based on biology, whether it's physical (unenlightened civilizatons lost to enlightened ones, so the genes of the enlightened ones got passed on more) or environmental (learning from past experience, socializing others accordingly, etc.).

Well the ancient Egyptians had a great civilization in Africa as did imperial China in Asia and several other great powers in antiquity such as the Persians or the ancient Greeks and the Aztecs and Incas - all different races – which suggests that favourable converging factors, other than race, were the important components in the rise of civilizations.

Okay, but aren't such civilizations a counter-example to what you're talking about? They were successful certainly, but successful while including violence and/or slavery and/or lack of equality for women or other groups. So it shows that societies who do things "wrong" can keep existing for long periods, passing such traits onto offspring.

Then the question comes, why does one need to look back to antiquity? Why are there no great, enlightened, prosperous civilizations in Africa now? Is it genetic?

As for violent vis-à-vis compassionate societies, surely the totalitarianism one finds in ideologically-based societies – especially religious ideology – is the main factor here. "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion." -- Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics.

It seems that when any ideology becomes a priority, whether a religion or Mao's little red book, societies start sacrificing individual freedoms in order to enforce the ideology.

I think it's just the natural urge to create a cohesive society, run amok, and as long as we have the trait of wanting everyone in a society to agree on certain basic things, it'll happen. The underlying trait can't really be bred out, because it's a useful and necessary one in moderation to hold a society together. That means, like the peacock's tail, it'll occasionally show up in excess. The way it seems to still show up regularly indicates to me that there's been no biological change, as far as lessening its excesses.

 

[Tassman]

Ah, okay. On that we agree. Yes, I think any changes are based on biology, whether it's physical (unenlightened civilizatons lost to enlightened ones, so the genes of the enlightened ones got passed on more) or environmental (learning from past experience, socializing others accordingly, etc.).

Yes.

Okay, but aren't such civilizations a counter-example to what you're talking about? They were successful certainly, but successful while including violence and/or slavery and/or lack of equality for women or other groups. So it shows that societies who do things "wrong" can keep existing for long periods, passing such traits onto offspring.

I doubt we’ll ever get civilizations that do all things right. But it seems to me that we’re learning. There are still prosperous but highly repressive societies in the world, e.g. Saudi Arabia. But whereas such governance was once accepted internationally as the norm it is not generally considered acceptable by most developed countries today.

At the international level we now recognize concepts like ‘universal rights’ and ‘crimes against humanity’. E.g. Whereas Moses was once regarded as a tribal hero by his people for his genocide of the rival Amorite tribe (as demanded by his God) today he would be a candidate for the International Criminal Court in the Hague and probably hanged.

Then the question comes, why does one need to look back to antiquity? Why are there no great, enlightened, prosperous civilizations in Africa now? Is it genetic?

I'm neither a sociologist nor an anthropologist but I would guess that with Africa it’s a question of its geological location, the luck of the draw and who had the biggest guns. Africa has been subject to colonization since ancient times and even today is barely recovered from millennia of occupation.

That said many indigenous cultures often created complex, sophisticated, highly civilized societies - much more in tune with the land than ours were - e.g. the Australian Aborigines and the indigenous Native Americans. But they had no good weaponry to protect what they had and we had the guns to steal it from them.

It seems that when any ideology becomes a priority, whether a religion or Mao's little red book, societies start sacrificing individual freedoms in order to enforce the ideology.

Couldn't agree more; just look at the brutal jockeying for power in the name of conflicting religious ideologies in the Middle East and parts of Africa.

I think it's just the natural urge to create a cohesive society, run amok, and as long as we have the trait of wanting everyone in a society to agree on certain basic things, it'll happen. The underlying trait can't really be bred out, because it's a useful and necessary one in moderation to hold a society together. That means, like the peacock's tail, it'll occasionally show up in excess. The way it seems to still show up regularly indicates to me that there's been no biological change, as far as lessening its excesses.

I’m sure you’re right. These natural urges to create a cohesive society are both essential and, at the same time need to be controlled. The best form of government to enable this, IMHO, is one that recognizes this fact and draws up a constitution that contains built-in checks and balances - as per the Westminster style of parliamentary opposition in a multi-party system or the US system of three distinct branches of government.

To quote Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." To date it seems to be the best we can do.

 

[epepke]

Well yes, mental health, mental well-being do have a big intersection, although they're not quite the same thing (someone who's mentally healthy will likely feel good about life).

But it's not that "mental health" means "moral", it's that what's moral is to have regard for peoples' mental health, mental well-being, well-being, happiness.

That's what "liberal" and "progressive" mean.

Couple problems with that.

The first, of course, is that one has to choose a moral system that values having regard for this "moral health" of which you speak. Conservatives, for example, value moral strength above regard for others' etc. and so on and so forth, often to the exclusion of the other, and they have established quite a virtuous morality around it. That's a Hume "ought" thing, and I don't think that you and I need to beat that dead horse, as it has practically been beaten into subatomic particles by others in this thread, and Harris will probably never get it.

However, there's a more serious problem. There is some science that is actually being done on this by Lakoff and others, but those who have these values are notoriously resistant to the Cognitive Science that works, let alone to future developments. This is because such thought requires rejecting Cartesian/Enlightenment rationalism, which doesn't work. That is, it doesn't describe how brains work.

If you can figure out how to use science to solve that problem, I'm all ears.

 

[Wowbagger]

A Few Updates from the One Who Started This Thread

Well, today was the first day, since SkeptiCamp, that I had "nothing better to do" than to respond to this thread. But, unfortunately, it has blown out to about 120+ pages (if printed). And, I couldn't read it all in one sitting. Not even a long sitting. So I have a few options:

• Skim the thread, and only respond to posts that catch my eye. This risks missing out on responding to interesting posts that don't.
• Read the WHOLE THING first, THEN post a collection of replies; keeping redundancy to a minimum in my writing. This would have to wait until next week or so, I think.
• Read the thread in chunks, and respond to chunks of it at a time. But, this will only generate more responses I would have to respond to, before I'm even ready to respond to the next chunk in my queue.
• Forget specific responses, and just address the most common objections made, so far, in general. Though, I would still need to read most of this thing, anyway. And, it almost sounds like I should start a new thread, if I were to do that.

I am going to try to opt for the second one: Read everything. Post a collection of replies. But, it might be combined with the last option. But, I might give up and do two chunks, if I can't do it all by the end of the week. We'll see....


Another thing I wanted to mention is that Shermer's book, The Moral Arc, is now out. It is recommended reading for anyone interested in the topic of this thread! I am now re-reading it, in its final retail form. (And, more slowly than last time, to absorb more of it.)

Hopefully, my long-awaited actual responses can be posted within the week!

 

[angrysoba]

Wowbagger, all that those of us interested in the topic really need to see is how it is science can arrive at an evaluative premise namely why we should think one thing should be done rather than another.

Almost all the advocates for "moral science" have done so far is simply make a lot of trivial claims about how science can improve people's standard of living (which nobody seriously disputes) and made assumptions about what is moral to begin with. Unfortunately these assumptions are the important bits, and these assumptions are both the very thing science would need to be able to arrive at if "science of morality" made sense (in a normative sense and not a descriptive sense), and yet also something that science cannot arrive at because it is not a matter of empirical investigation. Michael Shermer is no different in this regard, and we have already seen his arguments thoroughly shredded. He, as with others such as Sam Harris, suffer from a conceptual confusion, mistaking a commonplace and uninteresting observation for a profound and ground-breaking observation.

 

[Wowbagger]

Wowbagger, all that those of us interested in the topic really need to see is how it is science can arrive at an evaluative premise namely why we should think one thing should be done rather than another.

I'll have more to say on this, later. But, there IS a starting place: Look for which aspects of morality can not be permanently gainsaid by anything else. Ideas based on good science tend to trump those based on other things, such as religion, pseudo-science, principles in general, etc.

Even if science is only doing the descriptive, it ends up prescribing the normative, by way of nothing else ever being able to override it, at least not for very long. Sooner or later, people realize there were better options, when they find themselves veering off from them.

Consequentialist ideas, I suspect, are going to trump those ideas that lead to worse consequences, for similar reasons.

Morality, in theory, couldn't go any other way, even if someone tried!

Michael Shermer is no different in this regard, and we have already seen his arguments thoroughly shredded.

I should mention that Shermer's book contains better content than the debate he had with Massimo Pigliucci. I think he learned a few lessons since that hideous thing!

 

[angrysoba]

I'll have more to say on this, later. But, there IS a starting place: Look for which aspects of morality can not be permanently gainsaid by anything else. Ideas based on good science tend to trump those based on other things, such as religion, pseudo-science, principles in general, etc.

I don't think anyone doing philosophy is going to argue that religion is a good reason for saying something is moral. Not since Plato anyway. I'm not sure what other point you are making here, or who is arguing that pseudo-science is a good way of working out morality.

Even if science is only doing the descriptive, it ends up prescribing the normative, by way of nothing else ever being able to override it, at least not for very long. Sooner or later, people realize there were better options, when they find themselves veering off from them.

Not even sure what that means.

Consequentialist ideas, I suspect, are going to trump those ideas that lead to worse consequences, for similar reasons.

????

If you mean that by specifying Consequence X as good and working towards Consequence X will lead to more of Consequence X than if you are interested in something else, then really you are being tautological, are you not?

Morality, in theory, couldn't go any other way, even if someone tried!

Again, I do not know what that means.

I should mention that Shermer's book contains better content than the debate he had with Massimo Pigliucci. I think he learned a few lessons since that hideous thing!

But is the argument any better? I suspect not, because I see no sign that Shermer even understands the counter-arguments, which is something I repeatedly notice with advocates of science of morality.