The Future of Moral Science

[bpesta22]

2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.

I agree too that morality is an empirical question. The first thing the science needs to do is measure "well-being". If interested, here's my attempt using the 50 states as the unit of analysis:

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/Pesta, McDaniel & Bertsch (2010).pdf

 

[angrysoba]

You referred to behaviour being “moral in and of itself”, which is an absolutist viewpoint, usually associated with theists. If this is not your position you must explain what you mean by “moral in and of itself” and how one determines such morality.

More well-poisoning. I asked you how you determined what was moral. Ultimately it was you who argued something was moral in and of itself and I asked you why that was so. Then in a frenzy of gotchaness you hilited the words and then started babbling about holy books as you often do, presumably to play to the gallery who you may hope are not paying attention.

It is correct that it is neither morally good nor bad for the species to continue to survive. I didn't say it was. This is a typical misrepresentation of the argument by you

Then it is irrelevant to morality.

Yes it does. It gives us a very good “idea about what we ought to do”. It describes how and why people behave the way they do. And this provides the framework for a moral code based upon our natural predisposition, as a social species, for a cohesive society governed by rules towards this end.

Then it is descriptive. Not prescriptive.

Favourable mutations enhance the species’ ability to survive and unfavourable mutations result in less survival capacity or extinction. This is not in doubt. Therefore it is reasonable to refer “survival” as the basic fact of Evolution – your typically gratuitous snide comments notwithstanding.

Favourable to individuals and their offspring, yes. Not to the species. That is a common misconception about evolution.

New Scientist:

Evolution myths: Evolution promotes the survival of species

Historically "moral ideas” have arisen according to the demonstrably changing social mores of the day. This as opposed to behaviour being “moral in and of itself” (your words) presumably existing in some sort of eternal metaphysical or divine realm awaiting discovery by clever philosophers or theologians.

Nope. Another false dichotomy and well-poisoning attempt.

 

[angrysoba]

I agree too that morality is an empirical question.

Bare assertion.

The first thing the science needs to do is measure "well-being". If interested, here's my attempt using the 50 states as the unit of analysis:

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Publications/Pesta, McDaniel & Bertsch (2010).pdf

Non-sequitur.

This is pretty much the SOP for the science of normative ethics crowd.

 

[bpesta22]

Bare assertion.



Non-sequitur.

This is pretty much the SOP for the science of normative ethics crowd.

I only read the OP-- didn't realize there was some controversy here. Dropping my chalupa and walking slowly away...

 

[angrysoba]

I think I have posted this before, but it is worth watching for those who seem to get confused on the difference between descriptive morality (i.e. what science tells us about human nature, the human condition, and also how science can provide us with data which informs our ethical choices) and normative morality (i.e. the values we decide are important when making choices).



Shermer is completely lost at sea in this debate and doesn't even understand the problem with his arguments. He seems to genuinely believe he is arguing something new and interesting whereas Pigliucci continually has to point out that Shermer is trying to smuggle in value judgments and often they are value judgements that are quite specific to his particular political philosophy which is a kind of libertarianism it seems.

 

[Tassman]

More well-poisoning. I asked you how you determined what was moral. Ultimately it was you who argued something was moral in and of itself and I asked you why that was so. Then in a frenzy of gotchaness you hilited the words and then started babbling about holy books as you often do, presumably to play to the gallery who you may hope are not paying attention.

Stop whining and answer the question. In #59 you twice asked: “why is it moral in and of itself” referring to my argument for an equitable society and an equitable distribution of wealth. The thing is that I never said they were. It is you assuming “morality in and of itself” is the benchmark. Not I. So again why do you assume there is anything that is “moral in and of itself”?

Then it is irrelevant to morality.

It is entirely relevant to morality. Morality is merely a code of behaviour deriving from the evolved instincts of self-preservation and procreation as social animals. They are genetically encoded into us and form the basis of our morality in every case.

Then it is descriptive. Not prescriptive.

No, it tells us what we should do, based upon knowledge of ourselves as a social species, to enhance social cohesion. Therefore it’s “prescriptive”. In short, it provides the framework for a moral code of behaviour. Or, to repeat, do you favour the notion of an absolute morality existing in some sort of eternal metaphysical realm?

Favourable to individuals and their offspring, yes. Not to the species. That is a common misconception about evolution.

New Scientist:

Evolution myths: Evolution promotes the survival of species

I was dealing with your snide response to my: “survival of the species is the driving force of evolution". This is not in question. But this is not to say it will necessarily be successful in the long term – it notably has not been successful for most species over the eons. And your link indicates it may well fail us Homo sapiens too, i.e. if we are not made redundant by super intelligent AI entities in the foreseeable future.

Nope. Another false dichotomy and well-poisoning attempt.

Diddums! Neither false dichotomy nor well-poisoning attempt!

Addressed to bpesta22

This is pretty much the SOP for the science of normative ethics crowd.

And the SOP for the non-science of normative ethics crowd is what - philosophy as expounded by your guru Pigliucci? I think not. Richard Carrier demolishes his arguments in his ‘The End of Christianity’.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Stop whining and answer the question. In #59 you twice asked: “why is it moral in and of itself” referring to my argument for an equitable society and an equitable distribution of wealth. The thing is that I never said they were. It is you assuming “morality in and of itself” is the benchmark. Not I. So again why do you assume there is anything that is “moral in and of itself”?

It's a safe assumption, if the philosophy you are putting forward is coherent. It might not be, though, but if so then asking you to explain what is "moral in and of itself" will highlight the incoherence.

Here's an exercise for you. Pick a thing you think is morally valuable, for example an equitable society. Then ask yourself "Why is it morally valuable?".

One of two things will happen. Either you can support its moral value by referring to some deeper moral idea, e.g. "an equitable society is morally valuable because is maximises happiness", or you can't and the process stops. You just say "I think an equitable society is morally valuable just because it is, there is no deeper moral idea, it's just morally good in and of itself".

If you went deeper the first time, repeat the process. Why is it morally valuable to maximise happiness? Repeat the process again. If your moral theory is coherent eventually it will bottom out and you will find the thing(s) that you think are valuable in and of themselves. Not because some deeper value makes them morally good but just in and of themselves.

Of course this might not happen. One thing I've seen people do is end up going around in circles, for example arguing that survival of the species is good because the species has evolved to survive, and that doing what we evolved to do is good because it ensures our survival. That's a possible failure mode.

It is entirely relevant to morality. Morality is merely a code of behaviour deriving from the evolved instincts of self-preservation and procreation as social animals. They are genetically encoded into us and form the basis of our morality in every case.

I've already explained that this claim is trivial to the extent that it's true, and false to the extent that it explains nothing. Nothing changed in our genes between 1800 and 2014 that made us decide that women should have the vote and scientists should have to ask permission from an ethics committee before they cut up a mouse.

Morality is indeed "deriving from the evolved instincts of self-preservation and procreation as social animals" in a very weak sense, but so too is aeronautics or cat memes. It's true, it's just trivial and has no applicability.

No, it tells us what we should do, based upon knowledge of ourselves as a social species, to enhance social cohesion. Therefore it’s “prescriptive”. In short, it provides the framework for a moral code of behaviour. Or, to repeat, do you favour the notion of an absolute morality existing in some sort of eternal metaphysical realm?

You're getting hung up on a terminological problem. Any ethical claim is prescriptive in the sense you are using the term, even daft ones like "you should grind pepper with your left hand to please the Flying Spaghetti Monster".

That's a different sense of the term to the descriptive/prescriptive distinction being made here. In this sense a moral project is descriptive if it's investigating what people actually happen to think, and prescriptive if it's making a case about what people morally ought to think. Science in this sense does strictly descriptive morality. By its very nature it has nothing to say about prescriptive morality.

I was dealing with your snide response to my: “survival of the species is the driving force of evolution". This is not in question.

It's funny how the people who make evolution their moral messiah so infrequently understand it. The unit of evolution is the selfish individual gene, not the species, and it competes for reproductive opportunities in an arena defined by both natural and sexual selection. The claim you say is not in question is actually plain empirically false. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976 so at a rough estimate your scientific ideas are about forty years behind the times.

And the SOP for the non-science of normative ethics crowd is what - philosophy as expounded by your guru Pigliucci? I think not. Richard Carrier demolishes his arguments in his ‘The End of Christianity’.

I submit that based on the contents of this post, your judgment about what constitutes the demolition of an argument is probably not as acute as Pigliucci's.

 

[blutoski]

It's funny how the people who make evolution their moral messiah so infrequently understand it. The unit of evolution is the selfish individual gene, not the species, and it competes for reproductive opportunities in an arena defined by both natural and sexual selection. The claim you say is not in question is actually plain empirically false. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976 so at a rough estimate your scientific ideas are about forty years behind the times.

Yes, that was an eyebrow raiser for me too. If anything, evolution's mechanism of competitive gene replication has the opposite effect: defeating every species and replacing it with something better adapted.

 

[Tassman]

It's a safe assumption, if the philosophy you are putting forward is coherent. It might not be, though, but if so then asking you to explain what is "moral in and of itself" will highlight the incoherence.

Here's an exercise for you. Pick a thing you think is morally valuable, for example an equitable society. Then ask yourself "Why is it morally valuable?".

One of two things will happen. Either you can support its moral value by referring to some deeper moral idea, e.g. "an equitable society is morally valuable because is maximises happiness", or you can't and the process stops. You just say "I think an equitable society is morally valuable just because it is, there is no deeper moral idea, it's just morally good in and of itself".

If you went deeper the first time, repeat the process. Why is it morally valuable to maximise happiness? Repeat the process again. If your moral theory is coherent eventually it will bottom out and you will find the thing(s) that you think are valuable in and of themselves. Not because some deeper value makes them morally good but just in and of themselves.

Of course this might not happen. One thing I've seen people do is end up going around in circles, for example arguing that survival of the species is good because the species has evolved to survive, and that doing what we evolved to do is good because it ensures our survival. That's a possible failure mode.

So many words to say so little! Nothing is "moral in and of itself which is the point I've made several times and for which I await angrysoba's response. Conversely you, like him, seem to be arguing the notion of an absolute morality so beloved by theists.

I've already explained that this claim is trivial to the extent that it's true, and false to the extent that it explains nothing. Nothing changed in our genes between 1800 and 2014 that made us decide that women should have the vote and scientists should have to ask permission from an ethics committee before they cut up a mouse.

Morality is indeed "deriving from the evolved instincts of self-preservation and procreation as social animals" in a very weak sense, but so too is aeronautics or cat memes. It's true, it's just trivial and has no applicability.

Is your ignorance of natural selection so great that you confuse “genetic predisposition” towards altruistic behaviour and social cohesion with a direct one-on-one response to our genetic make-up as applied to specific behaviours such as the emancipation of women. Pathetic!

Carrier: “The question of importance to any true moral science is not to study what people happen to want, but what they would want if they were suitably informed. All moral imperatives assume this” and only science can provide the answer.

You're getting hung up on a terminological problem. Any ethical claim is prescriptive in the sense you are using the term, even daft ones like "you should grind pepper with your left hand to please the Flying Spaghetti Monster".

That's a different sense of the term to the descriptive/prescriptive distinction being made here. In this sense a moral project is descriptive if it's investigating what people actually happen to think, and prescriptive if it's making a case about what people morally ought to think. Science in this sense does strictly descriptive morality. By its very nature it has nothing to say about prescriptive morality.

Any ethical claim is not prescriptive in the sense I’m using the term, it needs to be measured against knowledge which can only be obtained by science, as I said. This unless you’re arguing for the nonsense of ‘absolute morality’ existing in some sort of eternal metaphysical realm. Are you?

Philosophy has no actual standards by which to establish a true premise or to measure progress. Only science can do this.

It's funny how the people who make evolution their moral messiah so infrequently understand it. The unit of evolution is the selfish individual gene, not the species, and it competes for reproductive opportunities in an arena defined by both natural and sexual selection. The claim you say is not in question is actually plain empirically false. The Selfish Gene was published in 1976 so at a rough estimate your scientific ideas are about forty years behind the times.

This is the sort of ignorant, self-serving crap, complete with belittling ad homs one expects from Evangelical apologists.

“It is inappropriate to use everyday language in conveying scientific meaning in general and particularly for the present instance: the rhetoric of The Selfish Gene exactly reverses the real situation: through metaphor genes are endowed with properties only sentient beings can possess, such as selfishness, while sentient beings are stripped of these properties and called machines (robots)” - Symons, Donald. ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’, cited Wiki

“An overall definition of gene "behaviour" as altruistic, therefore, allows, as already stated, that genes pursue "selfish" motives of their own only to the extent that they do not come into conflict with those of the organism or the group. Where there is a conflict, the synthetic perspective predicts that organism/group goals will override gene goals” – John Thomas Didymus, ‘Digital Journal’

I submit that based on the contents of this post, your judgment about what constitutes the demolition of an argument is probably not as acute as Pigliucci's.

That’s what “you submit” is it? And you know this without having read the argument. This pretty well sums up where you’re coming from with your pretentious pontifications and the smug lecturing. You already have your conclusions, based upon your own "moral messiah", philosophy.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So many words to say so little! Nothing is "moral in and of itself which is the point I've made several times and for which I await angrysoba's response. Conversely you, like him, seem to be arguing the notion of an absolute morality so beloved by theists.

You didn't try that exercise, did you? I guess we can do it post by post, but it will be tedious.

Is it good to have a prosperous society, in your opinion? If you think it is, is it because a prosperous society is good in and of itself, for no other reason? Or is it because a prosperous society is a means to some other end you consider good, and if so what is that end?

Is your ignorance of natural selection so great that you confuse “genetic predisposition” towards altruistic behaviour and social cohesion with a direct one-on-one response to our genetic make-up as applied to specific behaviours such as the emancipation of women. Pathetic!

Actually I was pointing out that your thesis had to be wrong precisely because it only makes sense as written if there is exactly such a one-to-one relationship between genes and morality.

Otherwise it's like saying that spear-making comes about because of our genes and hence if we want to build a better spear we need to understand those spear-making genes. ("What's the alternative, huh? Huh? Ethereal spearness from the cosmic plane? A revelation from the Spear God?").

Carrier: “The question of importance to any true moral science is not to study what people happen to want, but what they would want if they were suitably informed. All moral imperatives assume this” and only science can provide the answer.

Well, kind of. I think you are equivocating between "only science can provide answers to the relevant factual questions", a claim which is trivially true and nobody contests, and "science all by itself can answer moral questions, without needing any non-scientific presuppositions or philosophy" which is trivially false and demonstrates a serious misunderstanding about what science does.

Any ethical claim is not prescriptive in the sense I’m using the term, it needs to be measured against knowledge which can only be obtained by science, as I said. This unless you’re arguing for the nonsense of ‘absolute morality’ existing in some sort of eternal metaphysical realm. Are you?

Philosophy has no actual standards by which to establish a true premise or to measure progress. Only science can do this.

This is word salad sorry. If you think you have something to communicate you'll have to try again.

This is the sort of ignorant, self-serving crap, complete with belittling ad homs one expects from Evangelical apologists.

“It is inappropriate to use everyday language in conveying scientific meaning in general and particularly for the present instance: the rhetoric of The Selfish Gene exactly reverses the real situation: through metaphor genes are endowed with properties only sentient beings can possess, such as selfishness, while sentient beings are stripped of these properties and called machines (robots)” - Symons, Donald. ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’, cited Wiki

“An overall definition of gene "behaviour" as altruistic, therefore, allows, as already stated, that genes pursue "selfish" motives of their own only to the extent that they do not come into conflict with those of the organism or the group. Where there is a conflict, the synthetic perspective predicts that organism/group goals will override gene goals” – John Thomas Didymus, ‘Digital Journal’

I think you are going to need to explain a bit more in your own words what point you are making. I guess these quotes are both authoritative and meaningful to you, but I just don't see how they dig you out of the hole made by your previous statement that "survival of the species is the driving force of evolution". It just isn't. Quote-bombing us with snippets critical of The Selfish Gene that do not address that point is just making the hole deeper.

That’s what “you submit” is it? And you know this without having read the argument. This pretty well sums up where you’re coming from with your pretentious pontifications and the smug lecturing. You already have your conclusions, based upon your own "moral messiah", philosophy.

Well, yes. That is what it is to know something about something, in this case moral philosophy. It is to have knowledge (conclusions), based on reason and evidence, and on familiarity with the field.

Those conclusions are always open to revision, but you seem to think that it's a bad thing in and of itself that I've had this argument before and knew you were wrong before you even started.

 

[Tassman]

You didn't try that exercise, did you? I guess we can do it post by post, but it will be tedious.

Is it good to have a prosperous society, in your opinion? If you think it is, is it because a prosperous society is good in and of itself, for no other reason? Or is it because a prosperous society is a means to some other end you consider good, and if so what is that end?

A cohesive society is “good” solely because we have evolved to live in such societies. Our moral code will reflect our needs as a social species and will adapt to changes as our social mores change. But such a moral code is not good in and of itself. It is simply a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be adopted by all rational persons.

Actually I was pointing out that your thesis had to be wrong precisely because it only makes sense as written if there is exactly such a one-to-one relationship between genes and morality.

Otherwise it's like saying that spear-making comes about because of our genes and hence if we want to build a better spear we need to understand those spear-making genes. ("What's the alternative, huh? Huh? Ethereal spearness from the cosmic plane? A revelation from the Spear God?").

Your analogy is unhelpful. We are talking about our predisposition towards altruistic social behaviour as social animals NOT a one-to-one relationship between genes and morality. Tool-making (spears) is a product of intelligence (comprising millions of genes) among the higher animals to achieve a specific goal not the consequence of "selfish" individual genes.

Well, kind of. I think you are equivocating between "only science can provide answers to the relevant factual questions", a claim which is trivially true and nobody contests, and "science all by itself can answer moral questions, without needing any non-scientific presuppositions or philosophy" which is trivially false and demonstrates a serious misunderstanding about what science does.

Philosophy is just a tool, one of many, for finding truth; it cannot obtain truth in and of itself without the input of science. Ethics is a system that has one foot in science and the other in philosophy – neither discipline alone can establish ethical truths.

This is word salad sorry. If you think you have something to communicate you'll have to try again.

It’s perfectly clear for those with eyes to see. Read it again.

I think you are going to need to explain a bit more in your own words what point you are making. I guess these quotes are both authoritative and meaningful to you, but I just don't see how they dig you out of the hole made by your previous statement that "survival of the species is the driving force of evolution". It just isn't. Quote-bombing us with snippets critical of The Selfish Gene that do not address that point is just making the hole deeper.

In your unseemly haste to hit me over the head with it, you misunderstood the argument being made in “The Selfish Gene”. Dawkins is NOT arguing that “selfish genes” dominate the entire organism. He is using the term as metaphor.

Again: "the rhetoric of The Selfish Gene exactly reverses the real situation: through metaphor genes are endowed with properties only sentient beings can possess, such as selfishness…” - Symons, Donald. ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’.

But this is metaphor, not reality. It is the sentient being as a whole which is altruistic NOT the “selfish genes” which comprise it. Just a "spear-making" is the function of the whole organism, not specific genes.

Well, yes. That is what it is to know something about something, in this case moral philosophy. It is to have knowledge (conclusions), based on reason and evidence, and on familiarity with the field.

Those conclusions are always open to revision, but you seem to think that it's a bad thing in and of itself that I've had this argument before and knew you were wrong before you even started.

So you’re saying that you just “know” Dr Carrier’s arguments against Pigliucci and Shermer are wrong even without knowing what his argument is.

So much for scholarship!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Okay, Tassman. Let us play - we are a social species, which functions in groups for which in-group versus out-group or us versus them are a part of the make-up of how social groups work. What you in effect are saying is this - I, Tassman, declare my understanding of what we are (versus them) and what we are not (versus what them are) for a universal we for all of humanity and I do it as dogma - it is so, because I say that we are so and that goes for everybody.
That is what you are saying in effect.
You decide what that we are!!!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A cohesive society is “good” solely because we have evolved to live in such societies.

Okay. Is it your claim that whatever we have evolved to do is morally good? For example if could somehow show that rape is an evolved behaviour and a successful strategy for passing on one's genes, would rape be "good" because we have evolved to rape?

Or is it possible in you opinion for a species to have evolved to do immoral things?

Our moral code will reflect our needs as a social species and will adapt to changes as our social mores change. But such a moral code is not good in and of itself. It is simply a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be adopted by all rational persons.

That's an assertion you keep trying to sneak back in. What makes you so sure that all rational persons, given the same information, will converge on a single ethical viewpoint?

Why can't one rational person favour human rights over net welfare, or another favour submission to the will of an unfalsifiable God that makes them happy and provides social cohesion over allowing their wife to go out without a burka?

Your analogy is unhelpful. We are talking about our predisposition towards altruistic social behaviour as social animals NOT a one-to-one relationship between genes and morality. Tool-making (spears) is a product of intelligence (comprising millions of genes) among the higher animals to achieve a specific goal not the consequence of "selfish" individual genes.

You're getting there! Okay, so you accept that there are no specific spear genes that make us want to build spears, or want to develop better spears, or that enable us to make spears. There are just general-purpose genes that among other things allow us to create spears. If we want better spears we shouldn't be looking at our genes because that's not where better spears are.

So why do you have to focus on this talk of "altruism genes" or "morality genes", and if they existed why would understanding them do anything to help us develop a better moral system? Why can't morality just be a social technology we develop with our general-purpose intelligence? Doesn't that seem much more in keeping with the development of moral ideas over history, that behave much, much more like a rapidly developing technology than like evolutionary, biological change?

Philosophy is just a tool, one of many, for finding truth; it cannot obtain truth in and of itself without the input of science. Ethics is a system that has one foot in science and the other in philosophy – neither discipline alone can establish ethical truths.

Correct.

It’s perfectly clear for those with eyes to see. Read it again.

Sorry, you have to build up an awful lot of credibility before I'm inclined to believe that superficially incoherent statements might hold secret wisdom. If you feel like putting the same thoughts in coherent form at some stage I'll try reading them.

In your unseemly haste to hit me over the head with it, you misunderstood the argument being made in “The Selfish Gene”. Dawkins is NOT arguing that “selfish genes” dominate the entire organism. He is using the term as metaphor.

Again: "the rhetoric of The Selfish Gene exactly reverses the real situation: through metaphor genes are endowed with properties only sentient beings can possess, such as selfishness…” - Symons, Donald. ‘The Evolution of Human Sexuality’.

But this is metaphor, not reality. It is the sentient being as a whole which is altruistic NOT the “selfish genes” which comprise it. Just a "spear-making" is the function of the whole organism, not specific genes.

So you googled "criticisms the selfish gene" or something similar, posted scraps from whatever you found, and think that this is going to make it look like your earlier gaffe was actually well-informed and intentional? When you're in a hole, stop digging.

So you’re saying that you just “know” Dr Carrier’s arguments against Pigliucci and Shermer are wrong even without knowing what his argument is.

So much for scholarship!

"Know" is a stronger term than I'd use. However yes, I think I have a very well-founded skepticism about the claim that anyone you draw your views from "demolished" Pigliucci's arguments, because I've read and watched a certain amount of the material he produces and everything I've seen shows that he's a careful, meticulous thinker whose stated opinions are extraordinarily difficult to demolish. He's particular about what he says, as good philosophers are, and he knows his material.

 

[Tassman]

Okay, Tassman. Let us play - we are a social species, which functions in groups for which in-group versus out-group or us versus them are a part of the make-up of how social groups work. What you in effect are saying is this - I, Tassman, declare my understanding of what we are (versus them) and what we are not (versus what them are) for a universal we for all of humanity and I do it as dogma - it is so, because I say that we are so and that goes for everybody.
That is what you are saying in effect.
You decide what that we are!!!

You've missed the point.

There is no immutable universal morality per se other than the universal predisposition of social animals such as us to adhere to a code of behavior congruent with community living and which is accepted by the members of that society.

This is common to all advanced social species to a greater or lesser degree and evolutionary psychologists such as Haidt, Hauser and De Waal have demonstrated that the precursors of human morality are present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates.

In all instances morality is a derivative of the evolved instinct of self-preservation and procreation is a consequence of natural selection. Such instincts are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. This is not dogma, it’s scientific fact.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You've missed the point.

There is no immutable universal morality per se other than the universal predisposition of social animals such as us to adhere to a code of behavior congruent with community living and which is accepted by the members of that society.

This is common to all advanced social species to a greater or lesser degree and evolutionary psychologists such as Haidt, Hauser and De Waal have demonstrated that the precursors of human morality are present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates.

In all instances morality is a derivative of the evolved instinct of self-preservation and procreation is a consequence of natural selection. Such instincts are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. This is not dogma, it’s scientific fact.

Are you aware that defecting on such social contracts strategically is also a derivative of the evolved instinct of self-preservation and procreation, and that unethical behaviour too is a consequence of natural selection?

This seems to be the motte-and-bailey tactic in action. Under fire you retreat to the trivial and uncontested claim that pack animals like us have evolved social behaviours. As soon as you think you can get away with it, you try to act like this proves that science can show us the One True Morality by studying our evolved social behaviours which is idiotic and has been repeatedly shown to be false.

 

[angrysoba]

There is no immutable universal morality per se other than the universal predisposition of social animals such as us to adhere to a code of behavior congruent with community living and which is accepted by the members of that society.

There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.

 

[Tassman]

Okay. Is it your claim that whatever we have evolved to do is morally good? For example if could somehow show that rape is an evolved behaviour and a successful strategy for passing on one's genes, would rape be "good" because we have evolved to rape?

Or is it possible in you opinion for a species to have evolved to do immoral things?

It is not my claim that whatever we have evolved to do is morally good and nowhere have I implied that. Are you being deliberately obtuse? We have evolved as social creatures in order to restrain individual selfishness by imposing rules of behaviour (i.e. a moral code) and so building more cooperative groups. For any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism.

This is not to say that some individuals or sub-groups won't renege on the social contract and society has devised penalties for such lapses. Every moral system has its renegades.

That's an assertion you keep trying to sneak back in. What makes you so sure that all rational persons, given the same information, will converge on a single ethical viewpoint?

Why can't one rational person favour human rights over net welfare, or another favour submission to the will of an unfalsifiable God that makes them happy and provides social cohesion over allowing their wife to go out without a burka?

This is “an assertion you keep trying to sneak back in”, namely that there is an absolute ethical viewpoint. This is what I’ve consistently been saying there isn't. There is no absolute, immutable moral code. This is s what you seem to be arguing for from a philosophical basis but which you have yet to elucidate.

The basis of ALL Social Contracts is Natural Morality which in common with other higher social animals, has evolved via Natural Selection into the capacity for cooperation, reciprocity, altruism, the awareness of the social rules of the group and penalties for those not conforming to them. Without these qualities being developed within us in the first place there could be NO morality as we know it today.

You're getting there!

Well gee whiz! What a pity I don’t give a sod about your opinion.

Okay, so you accept that there are no specific spear genes that make us want to build spears, or want to develop better spears, or that enable us to make spears. There are just general-purpose genes that among other things allow us to create spears. If we want better spears we shouldn't be looking at our genes because that's not where better spears are.

So why do you have to focus on this talk of "altruism genes" or "morality genes", and if they existed why would understanding them do anything to help us develop a better moral system? Why can't morality just be a social technology we develop with our general-purpose intelligence? Doesn't that seem much more in keeping with the development of moral ideas over history, that behave much, much more like a rapidly developing technology than like evolutionary, biological change?

The ONLY reference to "altruism genes" or "morality genes" is from you dishonestly misrepresenting the argument. To say that we as human beings are genetically predisposed toward altruistic behaviour is well documented. This is NOT to argue for “altruism genes". I can’t believe you thought it was. At NO point was this inferred. Ever hear of ‘concrete thinking’? Google it!

Sorry, you have to build up an awful lot of credibility before I'm inclined to believe that superficially incoherent statements might hold secret wisdom. If you feel like putting the same thoughts in coherent form at some stage I'll try reading them.

How very gracious of you.

So you googled "criticisms the selfish gene" or something similar, posted scraps from whatever you found, and think that this is going to make it look like your earlier gaffe was actually well-informed and intentional? When you're in a hole, stop digging.

Despite your pretensions you utterly misunderstood the underlying thesis of The Selfish Gene and now you try to cover yourself by patronizing sarcasm. Face it; you got the Dawkins argument wrong.

"Know" is a stronger term than I'd use. However yes, I think I have a very well-founded skepticism about the claim that anyone you draw your views from "demolished" Pigliucci's arguments, because I've read and watched a certain amount of the material he produces and everything I've seen shows that he's a careful, meticulous thinker whose stated opinions are extraordinarily difficult to demolish. He's particular about what he says, as good philosophers are, and he knows his material.

So, once again, you’re saying that you just “know” Dr Carrier’s arguments against Pigliucci and Shermer are wrong even without knowing what his argument is. And you call this scholarship?

 

[Tassman]

There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger.

No "buts"

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Are you aware that defecting on such social contracts strategically is also a derivative of the evolved instinct of self-preservation and procreation, and that unethical behaviour too is a consequence of natural selection?

This seems to be the motte-and-bailey tactic in action. Under fire you retreat to the trivial and uncontested claim that pack animals like us have evolved social behaviours. As soon as you think you can get away with it, you try to act like this proves that science can show us the One True Morality by studying our evolved social behaviours which is idiotic and has been repeatedly shown to be false.

Yes, that is the point - unethical behavior is also natural.

 

[angrysoba]

A cohesive society is “good” solely because we have evolved to live in such societies.

Why the scare quotes around the word good?

Is it a reflection of the fact that you want to have it both ways which is to say that you think science can reveal normative ethical standards and yet you do not want to go to the trouble of demonstrating how science can?

Every time you are asked this you trot out some platitudes about evolution that would only, if true, explain descriptive morality and not normative morality. You do it over and over again with more and more bluster each time your fundamental error is pointed out.

Our moral code will reflect our needs as a social species and will adapt to changes as our social mores change. But such a moral code is not good in and of itself. It is simply a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be adopted by all rational persons.

But why? Let’s assume I have masses of cash. I am insulated from the kinds of worries that most people in their daily lives suffer from such as the need for a job and a good reputation to get one, so instead I simply indulge my pleasures. For example, I may want to spend all my money on prostitutes and various legal drugs, flying from country to country whenever I am in the mood, feasting on whatever rare and exotic animals I can find, wherever I could. I don’t see any reason why I should do anything productive with the money because we all die and being an atheist as I am I have no need to fear retribution in the afterlife, nor do I have to have concerns for other people in society or in other countries, or animals, or future generations. If I was a woman I would not have kids, but I am a man so impregnating a lot of strange women is not my problem so long as I can get out of the country pronto. I expect there are some countries where people of my wealth can get away with a lot more than the citizens there, if you know what I mean. Now, where is the flaw in my rational plan to conduct myself according to my own pleasures? I can see why some other rational people might not adopt what I do, but that’s because they aren’t rich. I can assume that you have no objections to this whatsoever, but if you do then you need to give a convincing argument for your objections.

Your analogy is unhelpful. We are talking about our predisposition towards altruistic social behaviour as social animals NOT a one-to-one relationship between genes and morality. Tool-making (spears) is a product of intelligence (comprising millions of genes) among the higher animals to achieve a specific goal not the consequence of "selfish" individual genes.

Now, it is things like this that, if you will excuse me, make it difficult for me to take any of your claims on face-value. When you say “intelligence (comprising millions of genes)” your claim did not pass the smell test, just as your earlier claim about evolution did not. I am not an expert in these things so I had to go and check it. According to nature magazine in an article titled “Smart genes prove elusive”, the author writes:

Researchers found 69 genes that correlate with higher educational attainment — and three of those also also appear to have a direct link to slightly better cognitive abilities.

and

Scientists looking for the genes underlying intelligence are in for a slog. One of the largest, most rigorous genetic studies of human cognition1 has turned up inconclusive findings, and experts concede that they will probably need to scour the genomes of more than 1 million people to confidently identify even a small genetic influence on intelligence and other behavioural traits.

http://www.nature.com/news/smart-genes-prove-elusive-1.15858

As far as “millions of genes” is concerned, there seems to be a further problem as according to the London Science Museum:

“Before the completion of the human genome project, many scientists were expecting to find 100,000 or more genes in our genome. This was based on the assumption that because we are one of the most complex creatures on Earth we should have lots of genes. However, it turned out we only have around 24,000 genes. This is a few more than a chimpanzee or a mouse, but nothing spectacular. “

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/who...ngenomeprojectfind/howmanygenesdoyouhave.aspx

Though I will admit I am no expert and perhaps you have a better understanding of this than I do.

So you’re saying that you just “know” Dr Carrier’s arguments against Pigliucci and Shermer are wrong even without knowing what his argument is.

I have not read Dr Carrier’s arguments attacking plain old Pigliucci’s arguments (I like what you did there by the way; it might not be subtle but if the gallery is as dumb as you take them to be they might be impressed that one of them has credentials - they actually both have PhDs you know – my idol even has two actually so you should in fact refer to him as Dr Dr Pigliucci). However, instead of simply stating that Dr Carrier demolishes Dr Dr Pigliucci, why not present the actual argument. Then we can examine it.

I just have two questions. Is Dr Carrier’s argument a scientific one or a philosophical one? Or both?