Thinking Christian Comments
Original Post: Behavior and Morality
Without getting deep (for those who want more, see here),
I do want to point out that a system of morals which is hinged upon God is inherently subjective, unless one can demonstrate an objective way to know God's values and commands.
How can you claim that morals are not the result of reason and behavior? Both of them are epiphenomena, arising out of the complexity of biochemistry and life itself. In the same way that animals pass value judgments, and make decisions, people have the capability to evaluate the value of each decision and action. This capability is not, itself, morality...I don't think that Shermer was claiming it was. Morality arises out of this capability in the same way that music arises out of other brain functions. To say that music itself confers some evolutionary advantage is sophistry.
Atheism makes an objective morality possible, because it does not attach value to a being whom no one can demonstrate or effectively claim to have "a handle on"--a being who is able to subvert cause and effect, which is the basis of utilitarian ethics.
I don't think you can avoid getting deep about this, Daniel, though you're welcome to try.
Anyway, I'm perplexed by your use of the analogy, "In the same way that animals pass value judgments, and make decisions, people have the capability to evaluate the value of each decision and action."
Isn't it plainly apparent that animals and humans are entirely different in this regard? This comparison weighs strongly in favor of my position, not yours.
I've even heard a PETA leader point this out (I never thought I'd quote PETA favorably!). This was a radio interview; I don't recall her name. She was asked, why is it immoral for humans to eat animals, when it's not immoral for animals to eat other animals? Her answer: "Because we have a choice!"
That's the difference. They don't choose, they don't make moral judgments in any way comparable to the way humans do.
We've had some long discussions about this here, by the way, starting here.
Tom pointed out once before that if you follow some of these links to his previous posts the page will claim that there are 0 comments.
That is not so, and I would suggest anyone reading the posts on morality read some of the comments.
Tom is nearly right about animals not making moral decisions in any way comparable to the way that humans do. The problem is "in any way comparable," because that leaves open the question of how comparable it has to be, which then raises the question about the sliding scale, the continuum, between animal ethics and human morality, which is beautifully described in "Good Natured" by Frans De Waal. I'm not sure a hard and fast line between the two is possible. Here's some interesting quotes from that book:
"Aiding others at a cost or risk to oneself is widespread in the animal word." [re: altruism]
"If carnivory was indeed the catalyst for the evolution of sharing [which hypothesis he supports], it is hard to escape the conclusion that human morality is steeped in animal blood. When we give money to begging strangers, ship food to starving people, or vote for measures that benefit the poor, we follow impulses shaped since the time our ancestors began to cluster around meat possessors."
"In order to become a respected member of the community [even animal communities], we need to be almost blindly consistent. To resist every little temptation to stray from the chosen path, we need to believe steadfastly in right and wrong. Only a firm moral conviction ensures behavior that contributes to a lasting reputation of honesty."
On the other hand, and as a measure of De Waal's lack of dogma, "The behavior of dogs after a transgression is therefore best described not as an expression of guilt, but as the typical attitude of a hierarchical species in the presence of a potentially angry dominant: a mixture of submission and appeasement that serves to reduce the probablity of attack."
Don't ask me to defend all of this, as I don't have a very good handle on it, I'll do the best I can, I encourage anyone to get the book and read it, I'm a mere piker compared to a primatologist like De Wall.
Happy New Year, Paul.
Tom is nearly right about animals not making moral decisions in any way comparable to the way that humans do. The problem is "in any way comparable," because that leaves open the question of how comparable it has to be, which then raises the question about the sliding scale, the continuum, between animal ethics and human morality, which is beautifully described in "Good Natured" by Frans De Waal. I'm not sure a hard and fast line between the two is possible.
Are you sure there is any such thing at all as morality among animals? How would you recognize it, making no appeals to any absolute or universal standard?
"Aiding others at a cost or risk to oneself is widespread in the animal word."How does this indicate the presence of 'morality' to you? How would you determine that this behaviour is 'moral', without any reference to a standard that could somehow transcend not only the barrier between cultures but between orders? This is really only a description of an interesting behaviour and does not impact a discussion of morality in any way.
To resist every little temptation to stray from the chosen path, we need to believe steadfastly in right and wrong.You are quoting a man with whom you would seem to disagree. It is my recollection and understanding that you do not believe steadfastly in right and wrong.
Dewaal's dog example is a perfect illustration why we have no right discussing 'morals' among animals. We don't know what they are thinking or what is motivating them. A dog who feels no guilt but merely wants to lessen punishment is not exhibiting conscience or morality. We would not think moral a defendant who lied about feeling remorse for his acts only to lessen his jail time.
What is described is only an instance of the principle "to get along you must go along" and not any moral principle.
Again, behaviour reflects morality, but does not encompass it.
As people we know when we have truly transgressed, done wrong, because we feel it. We don't need policing nor a threat of punishment to enlighten us on the issue. We have a conscience.
Altruism may not actually be that common in the animal world. It's been a hard topic for science to nail down, but research claims to have a handle on it in our nearest relatives now. If chimps are not altruistic, then what should we conclude?
Then there's this interesting point:
"If carnivory was indeed the catalyst for the evolution of sharing . . . "
But whether sharing evolved would have to be one of the points in question, wouldn't it? I think even Mike S., who supports evolution generally, would have serious questions about whether human behavior (and especially ethics!) can be explained that way.
Charlie, I'm not ready to say that animals have morality, but we have observed the background or the foundation of same, a proto-morality, so to speak, consisting of altruism, sympathy, etc. Perhaps you're defining morality more narrowly than I am.
If the golden rule is a foundation of morality, then the foundation of the golden rule is to be able to imagine that another is not merely a rock or a stone that can be manipulated towards one's ends, but is another creature like oneself that could be affected by you as you are affected by others. The ability to imagine the other as similar to you is a part of sympathy, too.
I'm not saying that animals are moral when they are sympathetic, but that you can hypothesize a developmental line between sympathy in animals and morality in people, especially as part of evolution.
Dang, that's me above, I hate it when I miss that my sig isn't there.
I happen to think that many of our moral instincts/tendencies/etc. probably did arise at least in part from evolutionary processes. But it's obvious that man is a moral animal, and animals are not. The whole business about altruism is rather overblown, I think. It's hard to define what exactly counts as altruistic behavior, as Tom points out, and in any case the issue is the intentionality, not the act itself. It's not as if wasps or ants have any concept of "self", or of sacrificing oneself for others. They just do what they do instinctively, or automatically. The fact that human beings may have various impulses to help or protect those to whom they are most closely related genetically doesn't abrogate the fact that we are capable of making choices, and of making rational decisions about how to respond to those impulses.
I'm not saying that animals are moral when they are sympathetic, but that you can hypothesize a developmental line between sympathy in animals and morality in people, especially as part of evolution.
To continue what I wrote above - so what? Lets stipulate that our moral sense can be traced clearly and directly to evolutionary causes. What difference does that make?
Mike wrote:
Lets stipulate that our moral sense can be traced clearly and directly to evolutionary causes. What difference does that make?1. Uh, what difference does it make to what? Do you have something in mind? I don't mean that flippantly, I'm not sure if you're heading somewhere or if you don't see much use to this line of inquiry.
2. It's surely a Good Thing to understand the cause or history of some aspect of humanity.
2. It's surely a Good Thing to understand the cause or history of some aspect of humanity.
It certainly is.
1. Uh, what difference does it make to what? Do you have something in mind? I don't mean that flippantly, I'm not sure if you're heading somewhere or if you don't see much use to this line of inquiry.
I had in mind a variety of things. First of all, above you wrote,
I'm not sure a hard and fast line between the two is possible.
Usually when people say things like this they are aiming at a position along the lines of Peter Singer's, where killing a severely disabled infant is less morally problematic than killing an adult animal. Or where PETA can morally equate the killing of chickens to the Holocaust. Part of my point is that just because some aspects of our moral sense may have evolved, doesn't mean one cannot draw obvious hard-and-fast lines between humans and animals.
Second, given our discussions about the universality of morality, and your repeated reliance on an evolutionary source for morality, I was trying to get at the point that an evolutionary source for morality doesn't determine the answer to this question - an evolutionarily based morality is not necessarily a relative one. I tend to agree with you that understanding the sources of the human condition is beneficial, but in the case of morality it isn't all that helpful. Tom's post is about the difference between behavior and morality - focusing on the evolutionary causes of moral impulses doesn't address the is/ought distinction.
P.S. Tom, 'basis' has a typo in the first sentence.
Typo being fixed. Thanks.
Mike, I agree that an evolutionary morality is not *necessarily* a relative one. Might be, might not.
Secondly, I'm not aiming toward Seeger's position in the slightest, if that allays any concerns.
Lastly, I'm a little torn about the hard and fast line between humans and animals regarding morality. Surely, our vastly greater cognitive abilities allow us to approach choices at a different level than animals: we can adopt and uphold explicit, verbal moral codes, conceived at a verbal and logical level that animals simply will never reach, as far as I can see.
But, on the other hand, I'm not sure we can leave our animal origins completely behind. Please don't jump down my throat here for the following, I'd like to just speculate for a bit, in distinction to the careful logical process I usually try to follow. We literally have a reptilian brain, and we have a rational brain (forgive me if I've repeated a canard that has been long since refuted, but I think you get my drift). I've recently read (I forget where) the idea that we have many different, distinct aspects to our personality and mind that correspond roughly to different parts of the brain, and we shouldn't try to cram what are really different parts into a single, unitary thing called "myself." That single, unitary "myself" may be an illusion or epiphenomenon the brain creates for itself. So our animal heritage may not be completely left behind, and may interact with the evolutionarily more recent brain structures in complex ways because these sections of the brain are, after all, part of the same body organ. That gives me pause to completely reject any influence from our animal past on our higher morality, and to merely leave the line drawn hard and fast without *any* qualification.
Hi Paul,
I would still like to know how you can discuss any actions of animals as moral (or now proto-moral).
Since you say that such things as slavery and suttee can be either moral or immoral (not under different circumstances, but from different perspectives) how can you select an animal behaviour and say "this one is a moral behaviour"?
How is sharing or sacrificing oneself supposed to indicate morality to you? Your previous arguments have shown that you think that these are no more moral than immoral, depending upon the views of the society in which they are regarded.
In case I am not clear, I am trying to use your definition of morality here to show that even you do not believe in it. Even you know that what is moral is recognizable across time and generation. You admit this every time you talk of animals and describe their actions as moral. If morality did not have universal, objective grounding you would see no more morality in an animal sharing than you do in his stealing a piece of meat or circling three times before lying down.
Good point, Charlie. It brings back the old question for Paul: what do you mean by morality?
(Note to new visitors: Charlie is referencing a discussion from a few months ago. Go here to catch up with it.)
Charlie: Haven't I always mentioned morality based on evolution as a source for morals that were grounded in things common to all societies or the human condition. ( I'm a little uncomfortable calling that "objective,") Arguing, as I did, for relative aspects of morality does not deny the common ones.
I know what you have always argued Paul.
Show me how you can select one behaviour and claim it is moral.
Haven't I always mentioned morality based on evolution as a source for morals that were grounded in things common to all societies or the human condition. ( I'm a little uncomfortable calling that "objective,")
Who cares how comfortable you are? Something that is common to all societies or all humans must be objective - otherwise you wouldn't be able to demonstrate or know that it was common to all those things.
Aw, Mike, I care how comfortable Paul is (I bet you do too). We're all friend here, after all 
.
On the other hand, whether Paul is comfortable or not has very little to do with whether what he's saying is correct. That is to say, I agree with what you just wrote.
Tom: I can give you my definition of morality (the system of codes and standards that people use in order to live in relation with others), but I suspect this is not fruitful for our discussion, if you think it is, I welcome your ideas.
Charlie: if your question implies "moral for all time in all societies in all X and in all Y, etc." it is exactly my point that answering that question is exceedingly hard to do (although evolution provides some clues here, as nearly all if not all societies have prohibitions against murder, etc., for some good evolutionary reasons that Steven Pinker lays out in "The Blank Slate," which I just finished, and I highly recommend, although it is a long book.
But I've said this all before, haven't I?
No, Paul, I mean show me why you can call it a moral behaviour.
How do you deem it 'moral' when an animal shares but not when it steals?
Charlie, rather than asking a question, if you already know where you want the argument to go, I'd like to ask that you just lay out the argument in the interests of convenience, time, etc.
However, addressing your question anyway, I need clarification. Are you asking whether *I* think an animal sharing or stealing is moral, or whether the *animal* "thinks" sharing or stealing is moral?
Either way, right and wrong is still defined within a social group. Commonalities between groups may well exist due to evolutionary pressures. For animals, the group might be one particular tribe or even the entire species.
Thanks Paul.
Your continued inability to answer the most straightforward of questions really is answer enough.
Now, Charlie, that wasn't fair. Our disagreement is roughly equal to the question of whether your question is straightforward or not, so for you to complain that I can't give a straightforward answer begs the question.
I'm willing to continue a conversation with you and see where your ideas lead if you're willing to see where my ideas lead, and not just dismiss them because they aren't straightforward. Let me know if you'd like to continue on that basis or not.
Hi Paul.
I'm sorry if you find my comments and questions to be unfair and dismissive.
I think, however, that they display the exact opposite. I read your ideas, contemplate them, disagree with them to some degree or another (usually) and ask you about them.
Most of these questions remain unanswered on this thread, and if you feel you want to dialogue on them they are still there to consider.
If you are worried about what I am trying to prove or what my point is it is still there as well. I think it is #18.
Charlie - I only considered *one* of your comments to be dismissive, the one in your post from 01.07.06 - 10:41 am. I would agree that, for all your other comments, you read my posts, cogitate, and then discuss things. I only mentioned that one post, so I'd like to stay focused on that.
If you're interested in continuing the conversation, could you pick things up from your 01.07.06 - 10:41 am post and restate where the argument has progressed to?
Hi Paul.
I don't know if I can fulfill your latest requirements for continued discussion as I don't think the argument has progressed at all.
Additionally, we also would appear to be at an impasse because, contra your restriction, I would like to focus on the question I had asked you.
Even though we really have not gone forward at all I'm never one to shy away from going backward, so the question(s) again:
Are you sure there is any such thing at all as morality among animals?The closest you've come to answering is to continue to beg the question "morality evolved".
(((to be fair, you did respond that you wouldn't say animals exhibited 'morality', only 'proto-morality')))
How would you recognize it, making no appeals to any absolute or universal standard?...How would you determine that this behaviour is 'moral', without any reference to a standard that could somehow transcend not only the barrier between cultures but between orders?
...
I would still like to know how you can discuss any actions of animals as moral (or now proto-moral).
Since you say that such things as slavery and suttee can be either moral or immoral (not under different circumstances, but from different perspectives) how can you select an animal behaviour and say "this one is a moral behaviour"?
How is sharing or sacrificing oneself supposed to indicate morality to you? Your previous arguments have shown that you think that these are no more moral than immoral, depending upon the views of the society in which they are regarded.
In case I am not clear, I am trying to use your definition of morality here to show that even you do not believe in it. Even you know that what is moral is recognizable across time and generation. You admit this every time you talk of animals and describe their actions as moral. If morality did not have universal, objective grounding you would see no more morality in an animal sharing than you do in his stealing a piece of meat or circling three times before lying down.
...
Show me how you can select one behaviour and claim it is moral.
...
How do you deem it 'moral' when an animal shares but not when it steals?
Granting, for the sake of argument, that we've evolved from said animals, and that we've inherited aspects of our behavioural tendencies from them, does not lead us to morality. If we inherit the desire to steal as well as the desire to share we are still left with determining which we ought to do, since in your purported view, neither is good nor bad. However, you still betray your knowledge of the truth when you admit that sympathy and sharing are indicative of morality. You do know that there is such a thing as a recognizable good, even if demonstrated in a culture where there is no cognitive realization of such.
You've also said in response:
Arguing, as I did, for relative aspects of morality does not deny the common ones.I read this as making a false implication. You did not argue for these hypothetical and limited relative aspects of morality, but rather, you argued that morality itself is relative. Yes, you mentioned that there were "nearly" universal -though not objective- ideals common to the human condition and bestowed by evolution, but you maintained that they, too, are relative.
As you now seem somewhat more willing to relent your grip on strictly relative morality I could hope that it is because you have started to see the failings of your previous logic (when you want to judge a transcendent God within your culturally determined morality, and when you want to go against that culture's determination of morality, for instance...). I expect that this is not true, however, and that you are only tentatively approaching an admission of objective morality because Mike S. has given you a possible alternative with his mention of natural law.
Furthermore, the change signaled in your possible acceptance of objective morality (that which you are uncomfortable calling 'objective') indicates to me that you don't truly believe in your previous claims - as I see evidenced in your recognition of (proto) morality in the behaviours among animals. I believe that you have championed relative morality only as a buffer against admitting the existence of God and would be very willing to throw it over if you could conceive of some way to accept objective morals without accepting God.
1. Nearly from the beginning I acknowledged evolutionary tendencies, which would work against the most arbitrary aspects of relative morality. Mike's objective morality was an interesting idea, but that conversation never developed much, and the more I looked at it the more it didn't seem fruitful.
2. Your questions continually obscure the difference between absolute and relative morality (you often fail to make clear which one you're talking about, as in the folowing:
Granting, for the sake of argument, that we've evolved from said animals, and that we've inherited aspects of our behavioural tendencies from them, does not lead us to morality.It does not lead to absolute morality, but it surely can to a relative one.
3.
If we inherit the desire to steal as well as the desire to share we are still left with determining which we ought to do, since in your purported view, neither is good nor bad.The desire to steal has nothing to do with morality, it only serves the selfish needs of the individual. The desire to share comes from social and group pressures (=morality).
You're ignoring the other idea of evolutionary morality that says that morality develops through the social group the primate is part of. We may have desires to steal and share, but our social group still tells us which it prefers and the social group will attempt to enforce that preference.
4.
However, you still betray your knowledge of the truth when you admit that sympathy and sharing are indicative of morality.Relative only, not absolute (excepting evolutionary and common tendencies).
5. How is saying that "morality evolved" begging the question?
Paul,
Don't you think this statement is a bit unusual in the history of moral thinking:
The desire to steal has nothing to do with morality it only serves the selfish needs of the individual.
Serving one's own selfish needs is most certainly a moral issue.
And this:
morality develops through the social group the primate is part of
requires us to ask whether any other primates have developed any morality. I know you've referenced a book that argues for it, but I would have to raise these three questions:
1. Is there any evidence that "morality" in other primates involves something deeper than mere behavior (see the original post on which this discussion is based)?
2. Is there any evidence of moral reflection or cognition among other primates?
3. What about the lack of altruism among chimpanzees, referenced above?
I mention this because I think it's a spurious allusion to talk about "primates" when we're really only talking about humans. If morality evolved (which is one of the points at issue, of course), then it evolved in humans, not in other animals.
Hi Paul,
It does not lead to absolute morality, but it surely can to a relative one.Saying that it is so is not saying why.
This still does nothing to answer the questions above.
You are still begging the question.
Why do I say this, you ask? Because...
Your effort is to deny the existence of God.
It is therefore required that we are a result of a biological evolution.
To deny God's existence, you have also to deny the existence of an absolute and object standard for morality, as well as their source.
It is therefore a necessity that morality is a result of biological evolution.
To defend your premise then it would be necessary to demonstrate that morality evolved. You are begging the question you are supposed to be supporting every time you say that this or that moral sense evolved.
3.If we inherit the desire to steal as well as the desire to share we are still left with determining which we ought to do, since in your purported view, neither is good nor bad.The desire to steal has nothing to do with morality, it only serves the selfish needs of the individual.
Again, you do not believe your own premise. You beg the question when you say that stealing is not about morality because it serves selfish needs. This is not a violation of any of your definitions of morality nor how they arose.
In your system of course the desire to steal is a moral desire. There is no difference. Animals may share, and they may steal.
As evolved biological constructs we may inherit the desire to share and we may inherit the desire to steal. They are therefore both evolutionary traits, and as such are at best equal. Therefore, the evolution argument is a wash.
Our society may choose to inculcate in us the belief that stealing is good, or that it is bad, just as it might with sharing. This is just the luck of the society in which we are born. For instance, some may condone stealing men and calling it moral, some may not. Therefore the society argument is a wash.
If there is some other reason that stealing is different from sharing that makes one moral and the other immoral then you do not believe in your original premises.
2. Your questions continually obscure the difference between absolute and relative morality (you often fail to make clear which one you're talking about, as in the folowing.No they do not.
As in your attempts to discuss knowledge, you hide behind your qualifiers at all times.
It is irrelevant when I say "morals" whether I mean absolute or relative morals, or whether, as I do, I mean "morals".
This is not to deny a relative hierarchy of principles of morality, or even of the necessity to apply them situationally in determining actions. What this is saying is that when we make such decisions we are weighing which moral is most applicable - which is the greatest or most relevant 'ought' -we are considering what we know about what is right and wrong.
Human beings have an internal sense of what is right and wrong.
They know whether an action violates their conscience regardless of whether or not it conforms to society's laws and policing.
When individuals do not share this same sense of right and wrong the mental health community will tell you that they have a brain anomaly, a chemical imbalance, or some other pathology. Their inability to sense the common morality is considered a defect.
4What is this supposed to mean? Relative to what? Excepting evolutionary and common tendencies (absolute?) how? and why?However, you still betray your knowledge of the truth when you admit that sympathy and sharing are indicative of morality.
Relative only, not absolute (excepting evolutionary and common tendencies).
If you can look at another culture, in this case a society of amoral animals, and say "this behaviour is an example of what is morally good or right" then you are using an objective standard.
There is no reason via evolution to say one is different than the other. There is no possibility that the ideas inculcated in you by whatever culture you have chosen to identify with can tell you which is moral versus immoral or good versus bad in any other culture.
All you can say is "those animals do things, and we do some of those things. Some of those things we think we should do, and some of those things we think we shouldn't. Some other society will disagree with which of those things one should do and they would be as correct in doing so as we are. Evolution has maintained those things equally, so it is mute on the subject."
Oops, excuse me, Tom. Didn't see you there.
So, I beat you by a minute--what's the problem?
No problem, Tom.
Just my goofy way of saying "Hi".
Serving one's own selfish needs is most certainly a moral issue.Tom: sorry, I meant that in the sense that stealing is an immoral act (in many, most, all?) moral systems.
Secondly, I did an oops combining animals and morality with any qualification (proto-morality, elements of morality - sympathy, etc.). My mistake, I'm not trying to say that animals have a morality.
To deny God's existence, you have also to deny the existence of an absolute and object standard for morality, as well as their source.You have it backwards. God's existence precedes his morality. How can we believe in an absolute morality without first believing in God? In any event, it is incumbent on someone who posits an absolute morality to demonstrate it. The burden of proof for an absolute morality is on you. I'm just trying to show a relative morality, so that burden of proof is on me.
You are begging the question you are supposed to be supporting every time you say that this or that moral sense evolved.Merely stating one's conclusion is not begging the question.
It is irrelevant when I say "morals" whether I mean absolute or relative morals, or whether, as I do, I mean "morals".OK, I'll bite: what's the difference to you between morals, relative morals, and absolute morals? I suspect that morals, to you, are exactly the same as absolute morals. So, when you say morals, you've really meant absolute morals, and that's why I've had to clarify whether it's absolute or relative morals you mean in my answers. Furthermore, your questions are stated such that only absolute morals could be implied in your questions, and that is truly begging the question.
However, you still betray your knowledge of the truth when you admit that sympathy and sharing are indicative of morality.I meant that sympathy was part of relative morality, except to the extent that evolution fostered it because of commonalities among tribes or societies that might have different moralities otherwise.
Relative only, not absolute (excepting evolutionary and common tendencies).
What is this supposed to mean? Relative to what?
Paul,
I'm not sure how God's existence could precede his morality, since it implies:
1) God's character was assembled piece by piece over time, which it wasn't, especially since
2) God created time, and was a whole person (God) when he did it.
Did you mean it logically precedes his morality? You could possibly make an argument for that, but it doesn't mean Charlie has it backwards, since the two cannot be separated in any meaningful way.
Then you asked,
How can we believe in an absolute morality without believing in God?
That's a fascinating question. There is strong evidence that every person (including yourself) holds at least something as a moral absolute, and in fact this is often used as an argument in favor of the existence of God. One way we argue (as you requested) for absolute morality is by this empirical evidence.
P.S. Thanks for the capitalization! I personally appreciate it, for what that's worth.
Morning Paul.
God's existence precedes his morality. How can we believe in an absolute morality without first believing in God? In any event, it is incumbent on someone who posits an absolute morality to demonstrate it.
Yes, and no.
God's existence precedes everything, so ontologically this is correct.
However, the existence of morality, the knowledge that it requires an objective source is evidence of God.
As I have demonstrated, you have this knowledge yourself.
Merely stating one's conclusion is not begging the question.
No, but stating one's conclusion as evidence for one's conclusion is.
OK, I'll bite: what's the difference to you between morals, relative morals, and absolute morals? I suspect that morals, to you, are exactly the same as absolute morals.
True to an extent (but, as I have always said, there is no denying that there are relative aspects to the application of morality).
But, practically speaking, you are right. When I say "morality" I am talking about the morality that I believe exists. When you say "morality" you are talking about the morality that you think exists.
We can both point to the sky and say "look, blue sky" because that is the sky that exists, regardless of how we each see 'blue'.
You can answer questions from your point of view without the constant pretense that what I think 'morality' means outlaws any dialogue.
The question "how can you define any action performed by an animal as demonstrative of morality?" can be answered by anybody. The reason you refuse is because you know that it is not my question, but your knowledge, that implies objective morality.
I meant that sympathy was part of relative morality, except to the extent that evolution fostered it because of commonalities among tribes or societies that might have different moralities otherwise.I still can't make sense of this.
What do you mean by saying that "sympathy is part of relative morality"? How is "sympathy" part of a morality? Sympathy is a feeling or emotional state, to what is it relative?
What do you mean that it is not part of relative morality when it is fostered by evolution? You are 1) presuming it is a result of evolution, and
2) saying it is then part of an objective morality, by my reading.
I know you've now gone on record officially as saying that you attribute no morality, or protomorality, to animals, so the evolution card itself seems moot but I presume you have some explanation.
The real question remains as above, how can you say it is an example of "morality"?
I will answer the question for you.
When you see an example whereby someone or something seems to care for another you can say "that is the beginning of morality, because it is GOOD that they do that. It is RIGHT to consider the interests of another. This is what one OUGHT to do. This is morality".
Bear in mind that we have concluded this with no regard to whether or not this was the accepted norm and result of inculcation of that individual's society.
Likewise, if it were merely good, right etc. because it was conferred by evolution then so are fornication, murder, stealing, selfishness etc. also "good" and "right".
But they aren't. And you recognize this because you didn't point to these and go "look, we evolved morality from animals that display these behaviours".
Oops again.
This time you beat me by half an hour, Tom.
Again, I wish I'd seen your answer first, as my first line misses the point you identified in your first line.
I didn't see the implication at all in "precedes his morality".
I think it's a minor point as to whether God's existence must precede his morality. I meant that in the sense that it's useless to argue about God's morality before one concludes that he actually exists. Perhaps that's the logical sense that Tom mentioned. Uh, why did this topic come up? (Take that as a rhetorical question.)
Once again, that was me directly above.
Tom wrote:
There is strong evidence that every person (including yourself) holds at least something as a moral absolute, and in fact this is often used as an argument in favor of the existence of God.I would *love* to see this evidence. Tom, you threw that out there without any specifics (you tease!). ; )
Charlie wrote:
No, but stating one's conclusion as evidence for one's conclusion is.Correcto-mundo, but show me exactly where I did that, and if you promise to do the same, I'll retract it immediately.
Hi Paul,
On this point
I think it's a minor point as to whether God's existence must precede his morality. I meant that in the sense that it's useless to argue about God's morality before one concludes that he actually exists. Perhaps that's the logical sense that Tom mentioned.
I think you are right. That's what Tom meant, and this is what I thought you meant originally as well. But I took it as well that you meant that one had to accept God's existence before postulating an objective or absolute morality.
How can we believe in an absolute morality without first believing in God?
I say we can recognize first the fact that there is an objective /absolute moral source, and that this is (one additional) evidence of God. Both Tom and I answered this part of your post as a clarification of how we read your point. You ask Tom for his evidence, but he already gave it, as did I. You yourself, as exhibit A, have demonstrated that you understand that there is an absolute and objective element to morality.
So I guess now we are going to list all of the ways that we think the other begged certain questions and then argue over that?
I would hope that you would respond more fully to the conclusion of my last post, but until then, ok, here goes...
Why do I say you are question-begging?
To start with, here is a recent time when you did exactly that, and when I showed you that you had ...
3.
I said:If we inherit the desire to steal as well as the desire to share we are still left with determining which we ought to do, since in your purported view, neither is good nor bad.
You responded:The desire to steal has nothing to do with morality, it only serves the selfish needs of the individual.
I demonstrated the circularity:Again, you do not believe your own premise. You beg the question when you say that stealing is not about morality because it serves selfish needs. This is not a violation of any of your definitions of morality nor how they arose.
In your system of course the desire to steal is a moral desire. There is no difference. Animals may share, and they may steal.
As evolved biological constructs we may inherit the desire to share and we may inherit the desire to steal. They are therefore both evolutionary traits, and as such are at best equal. Therefore, the evolution argument is a wash.
Our society may choose to inculcate in us the belief that stealing is good, or that it is bad, just as it might with sharing. This is just the luck of the society in which we are born. For instance, some may condone stealing men and calling it moral, some may not. Therefore the society argument is a wash.
If there is some other reason that stealing is different from sharing that makes one moral and the other immoral then you do not believe in your original premises.
And I can explain further:You say that stealing has nothing to do with morality because it serves the selfish needs of the individual. To remove things that serve the selfish needs of the individual from your system of relative morality you are merely stating that they are removed. They aren’t and never were outside of your system. Side note: to now define morality as prohibiting such motivations again admits the objective standard by which you judge morals.
On my previous accusations of question-begging, first, my previous, uncontested reasoning:
Why do I say this, you ask? Because...
Your effort is to deny the existence of God.
It is therefore required that we are a result of a biological evolution. ((new note, you continually beg this part of the question, but I have not listed those areas being that the conclusion is so widespread, and even granted by me at one point for the sake of argument)).
To deny God's existence, you have also to deny the existence of an absolute and object standard for morality, as well as their source.
It is therefore a necessity that morality is a result of biological evolution.
To defend your premise then it would be necessary to demonstrate that morality evolved. You are begging the question you are supposed to be supporting every time you say that this or that moral sense evolved.
In this thread you have relied upon the presumption of the evolution of morals many times to conclude the evolution of morals.
the continuum, between animal ethics and human morality ((note: there is no continuum - unbroken series of identical components - unless morals evolved))
...
Charlie: Haven't I always mentioned morality based on evolution as a source for morals that were grounded in things common to all societies or the human condition. ((note: the presumption of morality conferred by evolution, not the argument for it. As an asied, note also that Mike S. and Tom both spotlighted your admission here of the existence of objective morality.)).
...
(although evolution provides some clues here, as nearly all if not all societies have prohibitions against murder, etc., for some good evolutionary reasons ((note: prohibitions against murder offered as being conferred by evolution, but not demonstrated. Evolution is cited as the reason that there is an (almost?) objective morality, but evolution has yet to be shown to have conferred any morality, let alone an (almost) objective one)).
...
Nearly from the beginning I acknowledged evolutionary tendencies, which would work against the most arbitrary aspects of relative morality.((you are arguing that there is an illusion of some objective morality, and that it is the result of evolving morals. But you are supposed to be arguing that morals evolved.))
...
I said:Granting, for the sake of argument, that we've evolved from said animals, and that we've inherited aspects of our behavioural tendencies from them, does not lead us to morality.
And you: It does not lead to absolute morality, but it surely can to a relative one. ((stated again, but never drawn as a conclusion))
...
You're ignoring the other idea of evolutionary morality that says that morality develops through the social group the primate is part of.
...
When I said:However, you still betray your knowledge of the truth when you admit that sympathy and sharing are indicative of morality.
You replied:Relative only, not absolute (excepting evolutionary and common tendencies).
((again, evolution credited, but in some obscure manner, supposedly explained below ...))
...
I meant that sympathy was part of relative morality, except to the extent that evolution fostered it because of commonalities among tribes or societies that might have different moralities otherwise. ((This appears in the exact post where you ask how I can say that you are begging the question. You offer that evolution fostered sympathy, just what you are supposed to be demonstrating)).
That's me in ((double parentheses)).
My argument, on the other hand was, and is, that your system of relative morality is being betrayed when you point to animal behaviours as precursors to morality. That is my contention, and my demonstrated conclusion.
I offereas exhibit A that you yourself understand that there is, in fact, an objective morality.
Now I'm certain you will disagree with the circularity of your arguments, as I will when you make your list for me, but your doing the right thing shouldn't be contingent upon my promise to do the right thing.
Correcto-mundo, but show me exactly where I did that, and if you promise to do the same, I'll retract it immediately.
I really should proof-read this monstrosity, but, here goes ...
Charlie, I'll try to respond here, I didn't finish only because I got busy.
I refined my idea about stealing being/not being about morality in my short post of 01.09.06 - 6:03 pm, I thought in a way that was consistent with your and Tom's thoughts. Didn't that work for you?
Charlie, I hope you don't scream here, but the mere listing of quotes from me doesn't prove circularity, and, in fact, obscures it. Rather than a long list of quotes, can you give me a *single* example, and, most importantly, just don't present it as if its cirularity was obvious (if it was obvious, we wouldn't have to discuss anything, would we?), but lay out and show its circularity in something like the following form:
A is what I'm trying to prove
B is a piece of evidence that is needed to prove A
B is actually A in disguise, restated, etc.
I'm sorry if you think I'm being obtuse or dense, but you've got to help me here.
HOLY MONKEY, PAUL!!!!
Just kidding (that was me screaming, by the way )
It's not that important that you agree with the circularity as I see it.
However, what you are now asking for is already in the quotes. Did you read them? Most of them have a ((note)) addressing the why.
Paul,
You missed the point by restating what you meant about stealing.
I knew in the first place that what you meant was that thievery is considered immoral, not that it is not a moral issue.
What I think I've demonstrated is that neither is there any reason to call it immoral rather than moral, in your scheme of evolving morality and societal inculcation.
You gave a nod to the fact that "most, all" societies agree, but there is no reason for them to, given your view of morality. (I have to remind myself to focus on 'ought' as I reread this comment,so I'll remind you here as well).
Actually, I might as well fulfill your latest request and tie it together with the above while we're here.
You could have said that "stealing is immoral". This would have been an assertion, a conclusion of some sort (unsupported though it may be), but not an example of question-begging.
However, you made stealing immoral BECAUSE it is a selfish act.
The question: is stealing moral?
1. Stealing is selfishly motivated.
2. Selfishly motivated acts are not moral.
3. Stealing is not moral.
This makes perfect sense and bears no resemblance to a circle, right?
Not so fast.
It only makes sense if we already know, if it has been previously established or defined, that "selfish acts are not moral". *
But this is not the case where morality is the product of evolution. In fact, by the process of natural selection of selfish genes, if one were to place value on a behaviour a selfish act should be the more moral (if you want to dispute this quick synopsis I would prefer you reread my many comments where it was previously elaborated).
Neither is it the case that we can presume that "selfish acts are immoral" where societies and cultures get to decide what is moral or not. Depending upon our society we can receive either point of view, and cannot comment in such objective terms.
(Please do not fall back on "most societies agree" as this will tell us only "is" and not "ought". If you attempt to you can only appeal to evolution anyway, and we get back into another circle).
Therefore, you are excluding 'stealing' from the set of 'what is moral' by saying that 'selfish acts' are excluded. The question has now been begged, as 'B' is not different from 'A'. 'Selfish acts' are not excluded by anything other than your statement that they are, so neither is 'stealing', a mere member in the category of 'selfish acts' excluded.
A is what I'm trying to prove (stealing is immoral)
B is a piece of evidence that is needed to prove A (stealing is a selfish act)
B is actually A in disguise, restated, etc.(stealing is merely a member of the set of selfish acts, which have not been demonstrated to be immoral)
* You are right to believe this, but this truth is not established in your system of morals.
This is further evidence of the objective nature of morality, and of your recognition of such.
Charlie, I don't know where to begin. You've oeverwhelmed me with a mass of posting, but only procedurally, not substantively. Is there some way you can reduce the problem of responding to you for me? I feel like, to really do it right and to show you why I think I'm right, I'd have to outline all of your recent posts. I'm willing to continue the conversation, but not at the expense of such effort. Where do I start?
What's lacking substantively in Charlie's answers? Or are you saying your sense of being overwhelmed is not substantive but merely procedural?
It seems to me that all Charlie has been working on has been to make a central point. Maybe he'll want to restate it for you. The core of it is that your statements, Paul, have been self-contradictory and circular.
Yes, my overwhelmedness is procedural. I need another entry besides Charlie's recent posts into his argument to answer it. Re-stating, in summary form, might help. If his point is that my statements have been contradictory, then I'd appreciate just seeing two quotes, nothing else, that are contradictory. If his point is that my points are circular, then some simple summary or outline would work, too.
Thanks for clarifying, Tom.
Thank you, Tom.
If only I could be as succinct as you.
On substance, Paul, Tom has covered it.
Paul, on procedure, you've now asked:
Is there some way you can reduce the problem of responding to you for me?
To reduce the problem, I would say, don't ask questions and make demands if my meeting them overwhelms you:
1) Charlie, rather than asking a question, if you already know where you want the argument to go, I'd like to ask that you just lay out the argument in the interests of convenience, time, etc.
2) Correcto-mundo, but show me exactly where I did that, and if you promise to do the same, I'll retract it immediately.
3) Rather than a long list of quotes, can you give me a *single* example, and, most importantly, just don't present it as if its cirularity was obvious (if it was obvious, we wouldn't have to discuss anything, would we?), but lay out and show its circularity in something like the following form:
A is what I'm trying to prove
B is a piece of evidence that is needed to prove A
B is actually A in disguise, restated, etc.
4) How is saying that "morality evolved" begging the question?
5)I refined my idea about stealing being/not being about morality in my short post of 01.09.06 - 6:03 pm, I thought in a way that was consistent with your and Tom's thoughts. Didn't that work for you?
To reduce the problem, I would say, don't ask questions and make demands if my meeting them overwhelms you:Boy, Charlie, I have to take that as an indication that you don't want to meet me halfway in order to have a conversation. OK. See you on the next thread.
Paul, I went over 75% of the way and still didn't meet you.
If you want out of a conversation all you have to do is say so - there's no law against it.
Yep, see you at the next one.
We disagree about that, too.
Why break with tradition now?
In case anybody missed the point of my 01.12.06 - 12:53 pm comment, the recent overwhelming 'mass' of my posting constitutes direct, and almost to-the-letter, responses to the list of requests and questions Paul made.
Paul's response to each was to add more requests or questions.
Paul's response was to ask for more clarity, more organization, more focus to the mass of previous quotes.
Why break with tradition now?LOL! Good one, Charlie!
Commenting by HaloScan
