How do Naturalists/Materialists account for the immateriality of morals, laws of logic or information?

[Bradskii]

That seems like a circular reasoning, empathy is natural because evolution is natural. Actually empathy doesn't add up to being natural as it also includes conflicting evidence against it being beneficial for evolution. Empathy can invoke hate as well as kindness towards others. That's apart from there being no actual empathy gene.

Whoa, back the truck up a little. You have already been given information that tells you that a genetic component that would select for empathy has been found. And if memory serves, it was a specific gene.

Notwithstanding that, all of the characteristics that make us human were not, at some point, available. From eyeballs to empathy, from love to ligaments, from hate to hernias. Keep going back in time (I would strongly recommend Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale) and all these characteristics fade away. At some point we didn't have eyes, but gradually they evolved. At some point, love wasn't an emotion that we experienced. Then it was.

Now either every single one of what we'd describe as human characteristics - everything that makes you 'you', evolved over a great deal of time, or...or what? Simply popped into existence? Was not available in one generation but was in the next?

Most of the members of this forum have an answer that's not available to us. So what is yours?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Seems incompatible given that they have no physical properties

Foolish ones! Did not He who made the outside make the inside also? (Luke 11:40)

 

[stevevw]

Double post.

 

[stevevw]

Whoa, back the truck up a little. You have already been given information that tells you that a genetic component that would select for empathy has been found. And if memory serves, it was a specific gene.

I think you may be jumping the gun here. From what I understood it genes were aa very small part (1/10) of accounting for empathy and that's if this is about what we would usually mean by empathy in the moral sense.

It seems to me that the science shows that empathy is unpredictable and can produce the very opposite of what we would consider moral or even be consistent with evolution and the survival of genes. Empathy can cause people to descriminate against certain others, even hate others and become violent. That doesn't seem very moral or conducive to cooperation and survival.

Empathy is actually a very poor moral guide. He compiles evidence from a range of sources to show that empathy can be innumerate, biased, parochial and inconsistent and can push us towards inaction at best and racism and violence at worst
https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/feb/07/empathy-is-crucial-to-being-a-good-person-right-think-again

I think equating morals with genes is very gene centric and a genetic fallacy. Like correlating neurons with consciousness there's an explanatory gap (Hard problem of morals) where we can equate the arrangement of chemicals with transcendent phenomena like empathy which is irreducible to chemicals. How do you even begin to explain that. Just claiming its genetic doesn't work on many levels.

For one its deterministic and seems to diminish human agency and free will and we are no longer responsible for our actions because our genes made us who we are. Once again the science has to either exclude the subject or devalue its contribution to make it work in spite of our great intuition that we do have agency and free will to intervene and thus negate any possible deterministic process that defines us. It just doesn't work in reality. The only real thing we have is our conscious experience and that tells us different.

Notwithstanding that, all of the characteristics that make us human were not, at some point, available. From eyeballs to empathy, from love to ligaments, from hate to hernias. Keep going back in time (I would strongly recommend Dawkins' The Ancestors Tale) and all these characteristics fade away. At some point we didn't have eyes, but gradually they evolved. At some point, love wasn't an emotion that we experienced. Then it was.

That's unless as many seem to support that consciousness and Mind are fundamental in the universe. That would make these abstract ideas like empathy and love transcend our eyeballs and any material and mechanical process. If this is the case then humans maybe just waking up to those truth over time as we gain more knowledge. It seems its the questions we ask of the universe that reveals the knowledge of reality. That means Mind is fundamental, the subject and observers Mind.

I think you may be talking about Dawkins extended phenotypes. But this still traces behavior including its effects on others and the environment back to genes as the original source and cause. We survive by the genes that survive. But I think not only does this fly in the face of reality, how we actually do control our behavior regardless of genes as agents but the science seems to supporting this. This view of how morals like empathy came about is once again materialistic, reductive and mechanistic which treats humans like robots and doesn't explain a lot about human behavior.

Now either every single one of what we'd describe as human characteristics - everything that makes you 'you', evolved over a great deal of time, or...or what? Simply popped into existence? Was not available in one generation but was in the next?

I think yes these abstract and transcendent ideas like moral truths such as empathy if universal truth like laws did pop into our Minds like we discovered them or awakened to them rather than they grew out of some non moral or mindless substance which could not be capable of having this in the first place. All this does is create more Hard problems I think for the materialist view.

Most of the members of this forum have an answer that's not available to us. So what is yours?

Not sure what you means by answers not available. If you mean we don't know all the answers then I agree. But its not really about answers but how we going about finding the answers. It seems that it depends on what a person assumes is fundemental reality as to what those answers will be.

 

[stevevw]

It seems that you think that "materialism" cannot be a sound basis for generating morals. Perhaps you are not saying this. In any event, I see no reason why we cannot argue thusly (from a "materialist" perspective):

1. All human beings, or almost all human beings, want the following: peace, justice, kindness, order, security, comfort, love, freedom.....
2. We are smart enough to understand that certain principles (or rules), if followed, tend to promote the achievement of these desired states.
3. Those rules effectively become our morals.

Where is the mystery?

On the face of it I don't see a mystery as it just makes sense. But there are logical objections which can at least complicate things. There are several arguments for objective morality. Sam Harris's the Moral Landscape being one which I think he makes a good argument. But they seem to break down by the 'is and ought' problem.

So we have a set or morals we intuitively know are truth like laws that we experience and use all the time but we have no way of showing this is the case because they don't conform to scientific materialism and logic.

But that seems a familiar problem across a number of domains like consciousness, biology and physics. It seems there is an explanatory gap between these transcendent ideas like moral truths that seem to be real and scientific forms of thinking and measuring the world. Maybe that's the problem, we are looking at the wrong end of the telescope. Aftercall these ideas are our direct experience not something out there to be rationalized away.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes I agree and we will probably get pretty close to human behavior. Even virtual reality can take us a long way being hard to tell between humans and virtual humans. But it misses one important ingredient, consciousness the ability to know what its like to be human and experience joy and other phenomenal experiences.

This is the big factor in the difference between mechanistic material conceptions of life and inner life which cannot be reduced to mechanistic material processes. Yet these non material phenomena are as real as the objective world. Not in the physical sense but in a phenomenal sense about the world.

(Ken)
How does this refute anything Ive said thus far?

If you mean as a naturalistic material basis for consciousness (physical brain) then this has not been supported by science. Its categorically impossible to equate brain (quantitative measure) with consciousness (qualitative measure).

Consciousness is defined as the ability to be aware and respond to one’s surroundings.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

You can’t be suggesting the brain has nothing to do with this…… are you?

I agree objective science only deals with quantitative measures of the world like particles, chemicals, forces and fields.

My question was not restricted to science, I’m talking about anything real.

But is that all there is to know about the world and reality. What about transcendent phenomena like justice, beauty, kindness and truth. Are these like objective truths similar to laws of nature.

No they are not. Laws of Nature are consistent regardless of who observes them because they are objective. Justice, beauty, kindness and Truth will often vary from person to person because they are subjective.

Even laws of nature are a human creation and a concept of Mind. This implies some force beyond a physical object working in the world.

If you consider human thought to be this force you speak of, I will agree with you.

Love for example is non material idea. Yet it has a powerful effect on the world. Its opposite 'hate' has caused wars and the destruction of the planet. How much more real can we get. Truth is another its used as a measure of many things which in turn can determine the fate of people and the world we live in.

Our experience in general is the biggest non material phenomena with influence on things. Its what shaped our history as to who we are and the world we live in. From our experience we have derived these truth like laws such as 'truth' itself, justice, equality ect which all play a big role in who we are and how we survive on this planet and even the fate of the planet itself. So these non material phenomena can even wipe out human kind. That's pretty factual and real to me.

Okay; you’re talking about stuff based on human thought. Thoughts are not real and by themselves have no influence the material world. However; they can motivate material beings to change the material world

That seems like a circular reasoning, empathy is natural because evolution is natural.

That’s not what I said. I said it is natural for humans to feel empathy for one another. Because humans are evolved beings, our empathy is the result of evolution

Actually empathy doesn't add up to being natural as it also includes conflicting evidence against it being beneficial for evolution. Empathy can invoke hate as well as kindness towards others. That's apart from there being no actual empathy gene.

Empathy being natural has nothing to do with whether it is beneficial for evolution or not.

If you mean the brain then I don't think this has been verified. Its only been associated and that is not enough to explain why physical abilities should produce something that is not part of anything physical (physical ability). There is some other essence to it that is qualitative (qualia) and beyond the physical. That is subjective and cannot be measured objectively.

The reason I believe empathy is natural for us is because humans need to be around each other; and empathy is one of the human traits required in order for us to enjoy being around each other.

 

[expos4ever]

So we have a set or morals we intuitively know are truth like laws that we experience and use all the time but we have no way of showing this is the case because they don't conform to scientific materialism and logic.

But that seems a familiar problem across a number of domains like consciousness, biology and physics. It seems there is an explanatory gap between these transcendent ideas like moral truths that seem to be real and scientific forms of thinking and measuring the world. Maybe that's the problem, we are looking at the wrong end of the telescope. Aftercall these ideas are our direct experience not something out there to be rationalized away.

I do not follow your reasoning. Re the first para: what are you referring to when you write "we have no way of showing this is the case because they don't conform to scientific materialism and logic". I presented a simple argument as to how our sense of right and wrong emerges - do you have a specific counterargument to what I presented. I see no errors in logic in the argument I presented - do you?

Re your 2nd para: we appear to agree that moral truths are "real" but where is the explanatory gap? I provided an explanation as to where our sense of right and wrong originates. What are your specific objections to that argument?

 

[expos4ever]

I would like to offer my opinion about the role of evolution by natural selection. If I understand this theory correctly, it is important to not ascribe it more power than it warrants. Let me be specific: I understand that those traits that are "selected" for are those that enhance reproductive success, and only reproductive success. In other words, and speaking very loosely, once you have produced offspring, evolution "does not care" anymore. Or, to put it another (equally imprecise) way, while the mechanism of evolution selects for traits that promote reproductive success, it (evolution) has no interest in traits that promote, for example, long life.

The bottom line: I doubt that evolutionary arguments fully suffice to "explain" what behaviours become adopted as "moral laws". For example, why would evolution "care" about our moral value that the elderly should be cared for and not put out on ice floes (Canadian here)? I suppose one might counter that by caring for elders, we create a society that, in turn, promotes reproductive success.

Note that by suggesting that evolutionary theory is not "enough" to explain morals, I am not implying that one is therefore logically forced into the position of invoking "god", or any other kind of supernatural thing, to explain those laws - per my earlier post, I think there is a rather obvious naturalistic explanation for how morals have come to be.

Disclaimer: I may not have a correct understanding of the fine details of the theory of evolution.

 

[Bradskii]

This view of how morals like empathy came about...

Empathy is not morals. No more than stereoscopic vision or having an opposable thumb 'is morals'.

I think yes these abstract and transcendent ideas like moral truths such as empathy if universal truth like laws did pop into our Minds like we discovered them or awakened to them rather than they grew out of some non moral or mindless substance which could not be capable of having this in the first place.

Again 'moral truths such as empathy.' It's like saying 'moral truths such as a sense of balance'.

And the rest is just woo. When did these universal truths just 'pop into our minds'? Got a time? And did this happen to all humans at once, so one generation had access and the previous didn't? Do you have the smallest fraction of anything that could be considered evidence?

 

[Bradskii]

On the face of it I don't see a mystery as it just makes sense. But there are logical objections which can at least complicate things. There are several arguments for objective morality. Sam Harris's the Moral Landscape being one which I think he makes a good argument. But they seem to break down by the 'is and ought' problem.

I don't see that as a problem. If you treat morality as something trancedendant then it might. But it's a practical matter. What works is good. What doesn't is bad.

Is lying morally bad? If the lie is going to cause a problem then we ought not tell it. If it solves a problem then we should.

 

[Bradskii]

We need this to be understood:

Empathy

The ability to understand and share the feelings of others.

That's it. It doesn't imply sympathy or warm fuzzy feeling to your fellow man.

 

[Bradskii]

The bottom line: I doubt that evolutionary arguments fully suffice to "explain" what behaviours become adopted as "moral laws".

Your take on evolution is correct. What works is selected for. What doesn't is filtered out. If a group of individuals constantly stole from each other then that group would fracture. As opposed to one that didn't. The latter group would have an evolutionary advantage. So those that didn't steal are selected for. And therefore we define stealing as being wrong.

It was never the case that someone decided that stealing was immoral in itself and therefore we shouldn't do it. It simply didn't work on a practical level. On an evolutionary one.

 

[eleos1954]

I don't see that as a problem. If you treat morality as something trancedendant then it might. But it's a practical matter. What works is good. What doesn't is bad.

Is lying morally bad? If the lie is going to cause a problem then we ought not tell it. If it solves a problem then we should.

what works? What "works" for one person may not "work" for another. Who determines what is good and what is bad?

 

[Bradskii]

what works? What "works" for one person may not "work" for another. Who determines what is good and what is bad?

In the evolutionary sense, what got us here. In any other sense, you do. And I do. If we disagree then we put forward our arguments to see who is correct.

 

[eleos1954]

Your take on evolution is correct. What works is selected for. What doesn't is filtered out. If a group of individuals constantly stole from each other then that group would fracture. As opposed to one that didn't. The latter group would have an evolutionary advantage. So those that didn't steal are selected for. And therefore we define stealing as being wrong.

It was never the case that someone decided that stealing was immoral in itself and therefore we shouldn't do it. It simply didn't work on a practical level. On an evolutionary one.

Is stealing to feed your family "wrong/immoral" ?

 

[Bradskii]

Is stealing to feed your family "wrong/immoral" ?

It entirely depends on the situation. If I could afford to feed them, it would be wrong. But if I had lost everything, perhaps in a war, and there was no other way, then it would be ok.

This is fun. Give me another one...

 

[eleos1954]

It entirely depends on the situation. If I could afford to feed them, it would be wrong. But if I had lost everything, perhaps in a war, and there was no other way, then it would be ok.

This is fun. Give me another one...

So ... it would be ok to steal food from someone else to feed yourself? in doing so if that means the other who you stole from does not have food ... then is that ok?

 

[grasping the after wind]

We made up logic, and we continue to use it because it works.

We made up morals, and we continue to use morals that work.

We are continually working on improving both.

Not really. We seem to be continuingly trying to avoid both.

 

[Bradskii]

It entirely depends on the situation. If I could afford to feed them, it would be wrong. But if I had lost everything, perhaps in a war, and there was no other way, then it would be ok.

So ... it would be ok to steal food from someone else to feed yourself? in doing so if that means the other who you stole from does not have food ... then is that ok?

That one would be a no.

Shall we keep going?

 

[Ken-1122]

Not really. We seem to be continuingly trying to avoid both.

Who is this "WE" that you speak of, and what kinda people are you hangin' out with?