Establishing Secular Morality

[o_mlly]

If sparsing is like parsing, but for semantics rather than grammar, I can try to help you understand the language.

Asserting that "non-disagreement" is a "double negative" is to make the fallacy of the excluded middle. Not disagreeing with P is not equivalent to asserting ~~P.

Good catch on the “sparse” error. I hurried my post as I was running late getting to Mass to pray for the conversion of atheists.

Since you did not parse the post as directed, I cannot give you extra credit. However, your excluded middle lecture has merit. Unfortunately, it does not apply. The word “non-disagreement” remains a double negative.

I imagine the poster was frantically back-stroking in the Rubicon and had to write quickly. The salient point being that his original phrase “seems reasonable” is not synonymous with his later use of “non-disagreement.

And now, back to the thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"Class, finally on your exam, sparse the above sentence for extra-credit. You may use your calculators."

"Sparse", really?

[I'm not doing this to dance for your "grade".]

 

[John Helpher]

In that sense, evolution determines that which we term 'good'. It might then happen that as societies develop we term that which is good to be moral.

An irrational, unguided, thoughtless process is the measurement you use to decide what is good?

 

[Pommer]

An irrational, unguided, thoughtless process is the measurement you use to decide what is good?

Does not Christianity posit that we ought to be better than just what our DNA tells us to strive for?
In this way evolution & Christianity can support one another; the “natural world” can only take us so far, then we must transcend or be brought low by another form of life “out competing” us!

 

[Bradskii]

An irrational, unguided, thoughtless process is the measurement you use to decide what is good?

No. We decide what is morally correct (see next post). You'll note that I put 'good' in quotes. What is 'good' in the sense I was using it is 'that which works'. So if altruistic behaviour is beneficial to us as a whole then it's good in that sense. And it's my position that such altruistic behaviour is evolutionary based.

 

[Bradskii]

Does not Christianity posit that we ought to be better than just what our DNA tells us to strive for?
In this way evolution & Christianity can support one another; the “natural world” can only take us so far, then we must transcend or be brought low by another form of life “out competing” us!

Exactly right. Just because evolution has instilled a desire in men to have sex with as many women as possible that's not a great excuse you can use with your wife. So even though it was 'good' in an evolutionary sense we are now able to determine what is good for society as a whole.

So you want to sleep with your neighbours wife? That's natural in an evolutionary sense (you want as many copies of your genes out there as possible). But we've decided it's a bad thing. But you want to help him fix his fence? That's also natural in an evolutionary sense (reciprocal altruism). And we've decided in this case that it's a good thing.

And why, by the way, have we decided that bedding your neighbours wife is immoral? Because it's likely to cause harm. Evolution could care less about what harms others. It will sacrifice the runt for the sake of the litter. It has no empathy. But we do. So we care. So we make that determination.

 

[John Helpher]

'that which works'.

I don't think we're living in a world that works. I mean yeah, it limps along, but there are so many problems. This world is obviously quite sick. Whatever it is that we humans are doing, it's not working. We need something different.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think we're living in a world that works. I mean yeah, it limps along, but there are so many problems. This world is obviously quite sick. Whatever it is that we humans are doing, it's not working. We need something different.

If it didn't work then we wouldn't be having this discussion. There'd be no societies. You wouldn't be sitting in a comfortable chair in the dry, protected from the elements, reading this on your iPad or laptop with a fridge full of food in the kitchen and a TV in the living room and hot and cold running water.

This is what the vast majority of people have. Maybe what you should be concentrating on are the people who don't have those things.

 

[John Helpher]

the people who don't have those things.

Right, this is part of what does not work regarding our current world system. There's a lot of people who don't have what they need, and a lot of people who have more than they need. It may be that "it works" is too simplistic, like it's either a or b. In reality, it's more like the health of a body. The body can take a lot of punishment and keep limping along, but it's a miserable life. How much better to be healthy.

I think we could actually have a much better quality of life if we were to use the standards Jesus laid out. We could still have laptops and TV's or whatever. Those things aren't inherently immoral. In fact, we could probably have even better laptops in a society where people work for the betterment of one another rather than for profit.

Sure, there would need to be some reduction in luxury consumption. I mean, if the entire world lived at the rate of consumption of western countries like America, England, and Australia, there would be no resources left! Buuuuut, if you are one of those people with the full fridge and the comfy chair and the hot running water, then a more equitable system where some reduction in luxury is necessary may not "work" for you.

It would make sense for you to prefer things as they are.

 

[Bradskii]

Right, this is part of what does not work regarding our current world system. There's a lot of people who don't have what they need, and a lot of people who have more than they need.

Well, it's worked so that we now have societies and the means to keep ourselves safe, warm, dry and fed. Generally speaking. And I'll readily admit that there are some who are not safe. And who are not warm and dry or well fed. But we're smart enough to know how to solve those problems. But you're right. Most of of us are reluctant to give up what we like to ensure that others have what they need.

 

[John Helpher]

But you're right. Most of of us are reluctant to give up what we like to ensure that others have what they need.

The crappy thing is that there are enough resources in the world for everyone to have a phone, laptop, and TV while living on less in some other areas (think about planned obsolescence) . It's just that the good change doesn't happen because everyone along the processing chain wants to make a little more. Even the people who would be open to trying something different, who aren't that selfish, are still fearful of trying to make any change on their own.

This is why I think the teachings of Jesus are better than what we currently have; they take into account all these issues and there are solutions given for how to deal with them in a fair, just, and loving manner.

 

[Bradskii]

The crappy thing is that there are enough resources in the world for everyone to have a phone, laptop, and TV while living on less in some other areas (think about planned obsolescence) . It's just that the good change doesn't happen because everyone along the processing chain wants to make a little more. Even the people who would be open to trying something different, who aren't that selfish, are still fearful of trying to make any change on their own.

This is why I think the teachings of Jesus are better than what we currently have; they take into account all these issues and there are solutions given for how to deal with them in a fair, just, and loving manner.

It's no good someone just saying 'Please treat your neighbour well'. To be honest, thinking that that might make some sort of difference is a little naive.

 

[John Helpher]

It's no good someone just saying 'Please treat your neighbour well'.

That could be true. As the saying goes, talk is cheap. Good comes from acting on the good idea. For example, Jesus warned his followers to be wary of leaders who love fancy clothing. I think practical reality bears that out; people who find comfort in outward decorations of authority tend to abuse that authority. Their insecurity invariably leads them to do so.

When you see a leader caught up in special decorations, that's a clue that you should be wary. That is a practical well to treat your neighbor well; you are contributing to the overall examination and assessment of potential leaders.

 

[o_mlly]

What is 'good' in the sense I was using it is 'that which works'. So if altruistic behaviour is beneficial to us as a whole then it's good in that sense.

• Natural selection built a brain that rewards you with a good feeling when you do what it takes to promote the survival of your genes.
• By “selfish,” we mean acts that are performed in the interests of the actor.
• Natural selection explains the evolution of the selfish actor.
• By "altruism," we mean acts that are performed for the welfare of others.
• Acts which further both the interests of the actor and others are not true altruistic acts.
• Natural selection can only explain the evolution of the selfish actor whose acts may only incidentally help others.
• Genes randomly selected that moved one to perform self-detrimental acts did not survive to reproduce.
• So, natural selection cannot explain altruism.

 

[Bradskii]

• Natural selection built a brain that rewards you with a good feeling when you do what it takes to promote the survival of your genes.
• By “selfish,” we mean acts that are performed in the interests of the actor.
• Natural selection explains the evolution of the selfish actor.
• By "altruism," we mean acts that performed for the welfare of others.

Mostly true. Yeah, I agree.

• Acts which further both the interests of the actor and others are not true altruistic acts.

True again. There's a reasonable debate to be had whether there are any true altruistic acts. Even those acts we do anonymously tend to make us feel good in ourselves. But by altruistic in this sense we are talking we mean an act that does not necessarily have an immediate payback. In fact there may be no payback from whoever benefited. But...if you are the type of person who will help out others then you get a reputation for that. People will look upon you as someone who is helpful. And who is worth helping.

My neighbour was laying a new lawn. He'd started and I could see it was hard work. I was just sitting on my deck chilling. So I went over to help him. I had zero expectation that he'd 'reciprocate' in any way. So was it truly altruistic? Not really, because I would have felt guilty him working hard and seeing me sip a cold one while I watched. So it kinda benefited me anyway in assuaging that guilt.

Then we had problems with a common sewer line. It affected 4 houses and each had to pay their share to get it fixed. Three of us chipped in. One didn't, pleading poverty (he drives a new BMW). I did some of the labouring for the work, the other neighbour helped and now we have this happy community of three houses. We all know that we can rely on each other to help out if we need it. The fourth guy...well, he's on his own. Nobody would be interested in helping him out at any time. In fact, if he needed help then it would give us some small pleasure in refusing it.

So there we have a small community. Based on altruistic acts that aren't necessarily truly altruistic. But they helped set up a small group who have a tendency to trust each other and to chip in when needed.

• Natural selection can only explain the evolution of the selfish actor whose acts may only incidentally help others.

See above.

• Genes randomly selected that moved one to perform self-detrimental acts did not survive to reproduce.

I spent a couple of hours burning calories that I needn't have burnt hauling turf. The neighbour who didn't chip in his share for the sewer saved his money to spend on himself. So we have three guys who help each other when help is needed. And one guy ostracised. I'll let you decide who has benefited most out of this little community.

• So, natural selection cannot explain altruism.

See above.

 

[Tinker Grey]

So there we have a small community. Based on altruistic acts that aren't necessarily truly altruistic. But they helped set up a small group who have a tendency to trust each other and to chip in when needed.

Imagine that ... no god required.

 

[Bradskii]

Imagine that ... no god required.

I'm quite prepared to agree with anyone who says that God designed evolution so that this process works as it does. In fact I'll argue with anyone who says He couldn't.

 

[John Helpher]

I'm quite prepared to agree with anyone who says that God designed evolution so that this process works as it does.

Are you prepared to call it intelligent design as part of that agreement?

 

[Bradskii]

Are you prepared to call it intelligent design as part of that agreement?

As in using natural processes to achieve an end result? Yes. In which case this doesn't happen:

 

[o_mlly]

But by altruistic in this sense we are talking we mean an act that does not necessarily have an immediate payback.

No, altruism in the sense we are discussing are altruistic acts that are more than simply acts that creates in the actor an expectation of a future reciprocal act. Altruistic acts measure the immediate costs and benefits in terms of reproductive fitness or expected number of offspring. Behaving altruistically, one reduces the number of offspring he is likely to produce himself, but boosts the number that others are likely to produce.

Anecdotes about sodding a neighbor's lawn or repairing community sewer lines do not answer the question.

How does evolution theory explain that during WWII, in the Pacific theater, no less than 27 Marines were decorated for throwing themselves on top of grenades.