Hey, Atheists...

[BCP1928]

What that God is the true source of the moral laws. Actually not really. I havn't pushed that as that would be too hard. Its a bit like proving consciousness beyond brain. Especially in a material world that demands empirical evidence.

My main aim has been to argue that morality is not materail as atheists base their morals on. Nor subjective or relative with evidence that its innate and universal.

Thats the first step before arguing that God is the moral lawgiver. I don't think thats even necessary as the OP is about what basis do atheists use toground morality. That can be argued without bringing God into it.

Yet you do it all the time. You have it that God has written these basic moral precepts "in our heart." That's very poetic, but not particularly explanatory. I assume you are describing the innate content of our conscience which is basically the capacity to function successfully as social animals: empathy, fairness, etc. Atheists agree that these basic moral precepts exist, "written in our hearts." The question is, how did they get there?

What might that be. Let me guess genetics lol.

That would be a pretty poor guess. Let me give you an example: We considered it moral to nurture and care for one's offspring. But a cat will do that with her kittens. How does she know how to do that? No one teaches her; it must be because it is "written in her heart." But humans are rather different than cats. In particular, we can consider the consequences of our behavior and modify it to adapt to our social circumstances. We still consider it moral to nurture and care for our offspring but are capable of making more decisions than the cat as to exactly how we are going to carry out that nurturing and caring. Because we are social animals each individual mother need not make those decisions for herself. She can learn from her own mother and from society at large what seems to work best to meet the basic moral precept of nurturing and those means are preserved in the culture as "morality."

Here is another example: one of the basic moral precepts "written in our hearts" is that we form long-lasting attachments between males and females and form families as a part of the basic nurturing precept because human young require much more nurturing than those of most other species. How that came to be "written in our hearts" is what we are arguing about, but nevertheless it is there and is a universal feature of human behavior. Exactly how we form and maintain those relationships is a product of social learning, and the details will vary with culture, but behaviors that are deleterious to the relationship are considered "immoral." Adultery is universally frowned upon in all cultures because it is deleterious to the basic moral precept to form long-lasting nurturing relationships. It is frowned upon where "one man, one women" is the cultural norm, in cultures where one man may have more than one mate, where one woman may have more than one mate and even in cultures where it is acceptable for two persons of the same sex to form a permanent couple. All of those are examples of how the basic moral precept "written in our hearts" is adapted to a particular culture by social learning.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I thought the OP was about atheist morality and how it can be grounded.

And you revived the thread by posting about natural origins of morality. Apparently, you don't like the consequences of your perfectly reasonable post and are now trying to deflect to the nonsensical phrase "atheistic subjective morality".

I thought the atheistic worldview was there were no transcedent moral truths by a moral lawgiver. Rather they are grounded in human subjective ideas, feelings and preferences.

There is not "atheistic worldview".

As there is no transcedent moral being the only option is to ground it in human subjective ideas which have no objective basis beyond humans. A circular arguement for moral truth.

Not a circular argument, but the logical conclusion of world without "trancedent" beings.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I didn't think anything of it.

Then why do some many scientists agree with what I have said. This is not my personal subjective view. There are research projects full of peer reviewed studies that have been going for years that have verified much of what is mentioned.

Evolution is not directed or under a "plan". No biologist is going to say that.

Yeah its getting too much into evolution. But then it will naturally come up because atheist arguements for morality are heavily based on evolution and naturalistic paradigms.

But yes a form of Lamarkian evolution is found in genetic plasticity and inheritence beyond genes.

I suggest you go learn what evolution actual proposes and end this line of claims until you do.

So where did the molecules and cell wall come from to create this unique metabolism. I guess from the chemicals and elements. But where did they come from. This takes us back to the beginning. So this must have been programmed into the beginning. Thats unless we live in a multiverse. But then which unreal scenario fits better.

Lol, well thats where it took us. If someone wants to claim that morality can be explained by material naturalism then ultimately its going to get back to what is reality. That is where all discussions on this topic end up.

No it's not where "it took us". This is all you getting confused about everything being "preprogrammed". I don't know who told you this nonsense, but the only thing "preprogrammed" into the DNA of any creature is how to build its body and current chemistry. "Future progress" is not "programmed" into anything. (Big bang is completely irrelevant to this as is the origin of life.)

What is the definition of morality.

That wasn't the definition in question. It was "transcendent". Nothing about morality falls into that category.

These are known as the babies reflexes. Like the fight or flight relex. They are a physical reaction that is already developed into the baby. They don't have to learn it. Though some find it harder to grasp for various reasons.

Yes, reflexes and instincts. The fairness instinct is a moral instinct that doesn't have to be taught or learned, just like you said in your post a few days ago.

They do have a direct stimulus. When a baby is near the breasts its reflex is to turn towards the breast, open their mouth and put forward their tounge in anticipation of the mothers breast milk.

Within minutes of birth new borns are particularly responsive to olfactory cues emanating from their mother's nipple/areola region. Beginning within minutes after birth, maternal breast odors elicit preferential head orientation by neonates and help guide them to the nipple.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016363839290008T#:~:text=Human%20infants%20are%20particularly%20responsive,guide%20them%20to%20the%20nipple.

Great, you looked up the mechanism behind an important survival reflex. It doesn't change anything.

These are all biological influences that are designed to get a newborn attached to the mother for vital sustagen.

Objection "designed" not in evidence. And now your typing is so bad you are making up words like "sustagen".

Ah because we don't treat morality that way in real life. We don't say someone is justified in acting immorally because they did not like the smell or because a gene made them do it.

But more basically think about it. A moral is an abstract phenomena. There are no wiring or physical processes going on that can explain morals. Just like you cannot explain the color red with the physical brain such as neurons.

There is two kinds of "red". One is precise brightness in various wavelengths we call red, the other is what humans perceive as "red". When an astronomer speaks of a star being "red" they have a precise measurement of the spectrum at all the wavelengths. When you or I speak of something being red, we are using our perception of red, and that is entirely in our brains and neurons. So yes, "red" is physical in your brain.

I suggest you read up on the psychology and neurology of perception starting with perception of color and work from there. Then we can talk about moral perception.

They are diferent categories. One is about qualitative phenomena and the other physical processes. Its like using a computer chip to explain kindness.

As you can see, not really.

But I reckon the god of suckle has challenges nowadays as there are many gods claiming to be god. They come in the form of false prophets in baby bottles and formula. Even imposters like pacifiers which appear like gods but have no life giving milk. Beware of false suckle gods lol.

 

[Bradskii]

But even your opinion that they weren't...

It's not an opinion. No-one has said it.

I had one person comparing morals like fairness to suckling which is a biological reflex which seems to me to be comparing it to a genetic basis. It implies just like there are certain genetics for suckling there are certain genetics for morals.

There re no specific genes that make us, for example, fair. What we have is a genetic disposition to certain matters. Not specific genes for it.

Then I have another poster saying amen to morals like fairness and justice being genetically based and suggesting I should look it as theres plenty of evidence.

Then go and have a look at it. Why are you telling me?

Remembering that the discussion was about fundementally whether morality is innate because its biologically and physically innate or because of some more abstract reason such as associated with consciousness and experiences or some sense that God instilled in us. So the only explanations presented to counter the claim that its innate because of some transcedent moral sense has been genetic and biological.

Transcendent is a word that doesn't belong in that sentence. Other than that, yes. Morality is a combo of nature and nurture.

If thats not implying morals have a specific genetic basis over any other non genetic factors then I don't know what is.

It's a combo of nature and nurture. Bear that in mind and you won't go wrong.

 

[Kylie]

Wait a minute you were just claiming my arguement that a moral sense is innate and not evolved supports the atheist position. Now you saying its not innate but rather evolved.

I don't know where you got that idea from. My position has ALWAYS been that the kind of moral sense you are talking about can be explained through evolution.

So how did the first generations of beavers who did not have this gene know to build dams. Like I said first its the choice and adaptation of the creatures own actions. Then after many generations if it provides a benefit the genes are then fixed.

First of all, it's a lot more complex than that.

For example, in Humans, there is no gene for eye colour. It's a result of many different genes that all work together to cause a particular eye colour. And each of the genes involved in eye colour can have other influences as well. There's no single gene for anything.

Secondly, why do you think it's a matter of either beavers know how to build dams or not? It's entirely plausible that the "first" dam building beaver (I hesitate to phrase it like that, but I know of no other way to say it quickly) simple had a mutation in a gene that made them more likely to gnaw things. Considering that beavers are rodents and rodents were gnawing things for millions of years before beavers came along, this should not be a surprise. If they gnawed trees which fell and blocked rivers which gave them an advantage (blocked rivers mean a higher water level which gives them more habitat), then this basic gnawing instinct would be something evolution can select for.

So you don't need to divide beavers into "can build dams expertly" and "can't build dams at all." Ther is a whole spectrum between the two points.

But it was the selection of the beaver that iniated this behaviour not some pre programmed process. The same with all niche contrustion. Its a form of artifical selection by the creature itself. Just like humans use artificial selection for Dog breeds. Except the creatures selection is usually adaptive and beneficial as it knows what it needs.

Not sure what you are saying here. What do you think the beavers were consciously selecting here?

The creature is not passive blob acted upon by some naturalistic force but an active player making choices that can benefit it. Or making choices that are non beneficial. One culture chooses a healthy diet and another an unhealthy one. There was no programming involved. Just beneficial or non beneficial choices.

And genes can play a big part in the choices that are made.

I am not sure of that.

Well, it is true. Genetics does play an important part in behaviour. This source explains how both genetics and the environment provoke certain behaviours. In beavers, there is the environmental factor and the genetic factor, in that beavers only display the instinct for dam building when they can hear running water.

Both Environment and Genetic Makeup Influence Behavior

How do genes and the environment come together to shape animal behavior? Both play important roles. Genes capture the evolutionary responses of prior populations to selection on behavior. Environmental flexibility gives animals the opportunity to adjust to changes during their own lifetime.

www.nature.com

If evolution is some force that programs us to live together by being cooperative and reciprical then why do we often breach this with counter behaviour thats not beneficial and conducive of survival. This can change within a generation or two.

There are outliers, yes, but these are generally one off things and the genes that influence these do not spread throughout the population. We've even seen this with other species. There was a troop of chimpanzees that was controlled by a very aggressive male, and the rest of the tribe killed him (and ate him). SOURCE

Not because we have lived that way due to some genetic program but that its beyond a programmed process. Morality can change according to circumstance so the last thing you want is it be be fixed to some programmed behaviour. What is moral one minute is immoral the next. As humans are fallible creatures and decieve ourselves we can turn a lie into the truth.

How can this be true if your argument is correct?

Evolution is a poor explanation of morality. It doesn't begin to explain morality as morality is not a material process or programmed.

Morality is a pattern of behaviours, and I have demonstrated that behaviour can be influenced by genetics.

 

[stevevw]

Yet you do it all the time. You have it that God has written these basic moral precepts "in our heart." That's very poetic, but not particularly explanatory. I assume you are describing the innate content of our conscience which is basically the capacity to function successfully as social animals: empathy, fairness, etc. Atheists agree that these basic moral precepts exist, "written in our hearts." The question is, how did they get there?

But who said that material explanations can explain such things. This is the genetic fallacy or whatever material process fallacy. Thats an unfounded assumption in the first place. So the atheist explanation is also appealing to a form of god of the gaps. Except its a material god of naturalism. Explaining the material processes doesn't explain how our conscience got there no more than explaining neural processes explains consciousness.

Otherwise what is conscience in naturalistic terms. Its whatever causes our conscience to prick. That could be anything because there is no objective basis for conscience. Whatever humans say it is or explain it as. That is subjective in itself. Chimps are also social animals yet do stuff we would consider a guilty conscience. In one culture evolution caused their consience to be senitive towards and in another culture something different if it gives a survival advantage.

People in some cultures don't have a consience or at least claim to that killing drug addicts n the street by government authority to stop the epic drug problem as in some Asian nations is morally good. Whereas western nations would consider this to be a breach of our moral conscience.

That would be a pretty poor guess. Let me give you an example: We considered it moral to nurture and care for one's offspring. But a cat will do that with her kittens. How does she know how to do that? No one teaches her; it must be because it is "written in her heart." But humans are rather different than cats. In particular, we can consider the consequences of our behavior and modify it to adapt to our social circumstances. We still consider it moral to nurture and care for our offspring but are capable of making more decisions than the cat as to exactly how we are going to carry out that nurturing and caring.

But if all mammals have this basic instinct to nurture and protect their young then this is a basic instinct that is biological and genetic as it crosses all species.

But as you say humans can take this basic instinct to another level that transcends the material instincts. We inject our beliefs and culture into how we bring up our young which animals don't do. This is a higher level of behaviour that transcends the basic instincts.

We can apply this to how the animal instinct to eat means they can kill other animals without mercy. Or even kill off femal offspring to gain mating advantages. We humans have a spiritual aspect to us which includes our conscience that moralises this. Its not part of the basic instinct or naturalist explanation as the naturalist paradigm doesn't care about morals or the feelings of others. It just is what nature does.

Because we are social animals each individual mother need not make those decisions for herself. She can learn from her own mother and from society at large what seems to work best to meet the basic moral precept of nurturing and those means are preserved in the culture as "morality."

But this doesn't explain how that moral basis for what is the right way to bring up the young. It also doesn't mean that what is being passed down is not some innate belief and morality and not just instinct.

Your also making a case for non genetic behaviour that is determined not by nature or Neo Darwin evolution but by agency. By the beliefs and choices of the mothers and culture that teaches those ways. If a single mother or a next generation of mothers chooses to do things different because they may have come to a better understanding of truth. Then this is not genetic or based on any material explanation. It is the mother, the agent who is directing this course and behaviour that they believe will be beneficial.

Here is another example: one of the basic moral precepts "written in our hearts" is that we form long-lasting attachments between males and females and form families as a part of the basic nurturing precept because human young require much more nurturing than those of most other species.

This is not a moral precept but an instinct. Animal;s do it and they are not moral creatures. The particular way humans nurture and bring up kids is layered over basic animal instincts. We are higher animals with a moral sense and spirituality that transcends this. We as humans bring morals into everything.

How that came to be "written in our hearts" is what we are arguing about, but nevertheless it is there and is a universal feature of human behavior. Exactly how we form and maintain those relationships is a product of social learning, and the details will vary with culture, but behaviors that are deleterious to the relationship are considered "immoral."

This is the genetic fallacy. Assuming everything traces back to genetics and natural selection. Under this logic an animal that kills off its weak young is just a socialisation and moral if everyone accepts it.

You can't conflate morals with basic animal; instincts. They are two different domains. One is physical, biologcal, genetic, NS and survival. The other is qualifying, its above the material explanations, its based on beliefs, spirituality, a higher order.

But then of course the genetic or naturalist fallacy will say that belief, spirituality and transcedent realities are all based on evolution anyway. But thats the point. You can't reduce everything to instincts, genetics and material evolution.

Adultery is universally frowned upon in all cultures because it is deleterious to the basic moral precept to form long-lasting nurturing relationships. It is frowned upon where "one man, one women" is the cultural norm, in cultures where one man may have more than one mate, where one woman may have more than one mate and even in cultures where it is acceptable for two persons of the same sex to form a permanent couple. All of those are examples of how the basic moral precept "written in our hearts" is adapted to a particular culture by social learning.

Your actually defeating your own arguement. You just literally said that believing that adultery is morally wrong in one culture is the same as another culture who believes that having more than one partner is ok. Or one culture thinks SSM is morally OK and another doesn't.

How can morality be written in our hearts in such a contradictory way. It should be one law for all if its written into our hearts.

Another example of how morality is not genetically or materially naturalistic is that it use to be that adultery was immoral in most western nations and as you say frowned upon.

But as marriage and relationships have been weakened and less respected and now adultery is commonplace and socially acceptable even celebrated as a freedom to find ones true love. Love is love remember and if its finding true love then all wrongs are negated as finding true love is the most moral achievement.

So how can this be written in our hearts when under one generation adultery was immoral and under the next after the sexual revolution is ok to commit adultery. Under this worldview morals are changing with every generation and theres no objective morals as they are socially created.

 

[Bradskii]

Your also making a case for non genetic behaviour that is determined not by nature or...evolution but by agency.

You are wasting a lot of time either arguing against what no-one is arguing for. Or simply repeating what everyone is explaining to you.

01. How we start off when we are born is almost entirely due to evolution. Various aspects of what we do, almost from the moment of birth, are driven by our genetic make up. Rather obviously as we haven't been around to absorb any aspects of the world into which we have been born. So the main driver of our behaviour is nature.

Do you understand that?

02. And as we grow, we absorb the ways of acting with others via our experiences of watching others interact and how they interact with us. That's nurture.

Do you understand that?

So there's a lot that is evolutionary driven and a lot that is due to our upbringing. Pick any link on 'Nature versus nurture' and the average percentages noted will be around 50:50.

Now...where is the problem that you have with that? Don't wander off into the weeds or down rabbit holes. Just answer that question.

 

[BCP1928]

But who said that material explanations can explain such things. This is the genetic fallacy or whatever material process fallacy. Thats an unfounded assumption in the first place. So the atheist explanation is also appealing to a form of god of the gaps. Except its a material god of naturalism. Explaining the material processes doesn't explain how our conscience got there no more than explaining neural processes explains consciousness.

Why can't natural tendencies be trained by socialization?

Otherwise what is conscience in naturalistic terms. Its whatever causes our conscience to prick. That could be anything because there is no objective basis for conscience. Whatever humans say it is or explain it as. That is subjective in itself. Chimps are also social animals yet do stuff we would consider a guilty conscience. In one culture evolution caused their consience to be senitive towards and in another culture something different if it gives a survival advantage.

People in some cultures don't have a consience or at least claim to that killing drug addicts n the street by government authority to stop the epic drug problem as in some Asian nations is morally good. Whereas western nations would consider this to be a breach of our moral conscience.

But if all mammals have this basic instinct to nurture and protect their young then this is a basic instinct that is biological and genetic as it crosses all species.

But as you say humans can take this basic instinct to another level that transcends the material instincts. We inject our beliefs and culture into how we bring up our young which animals don't do. This is a higher level of behaviour that transcends the basic instincts.

We can apply this to how the animal instinct to eat means they can kill other animals without mercy. Or even kill off femal offspring to gain mating advantages. We humans have a spiritual aspect to us which includes our conscience that moralises this. Its not part of the basic instinct or naturalist explanation as the naturalist paradigm doesn't care about morals or the feelings of others. It just is what nature does.

But this doesn't explain how that moral basis for what is the right way to bring up the young. It also doesn't mean that what is being passed down is not some innate belief and morality and not just instinct.

Your also making a case for non genetic behaviour that is determined not by nature or Neo Darwin evolution but by agency. By the beliefs and choices of the mothers and culture that teaches those ways. If a single mother or a next generation of mothers chooses to do things different because they may have come to a better understanding of truth. Then this is not genetic or based on any material explanation. It is the mother, the agent who is directing this course and behaviour that they believe will be beneficial.

Not just the mother, but the culture in which they find themselves. Nature and nurture, remember. But women have babies, regardless. If they can't find a male suitable for a long term partnerships they will have babies anyway.

This is not a moral precept but an instinct. Animal;s do it and they are not moral creatures. The particular way humans nurture and bring up kids is layered over basic animal instincts. We are higher animals with a moral sense and spirituality that transcends this. We as humans bring morals into everything.

This is the genetic fallacy. Assuming everything traces back to genetics and natural selection. Under this logic an animal that kills off its weak young is just a socialisation and moral if everyone accepts it.

You can't conflate morals with basic animal; instincts. They are two different domains. One is physical, biologcal, genetic, NS and survival. The other is qualifying, its above the material explanations, its based on beliefs, spirituality, a higher order.

But then of course the genetic or naturalist fallacy will say that belief, spirituality and transcedent realities are all based on evolution anyway. But thats the point. You can't reduce everything to instincts, genetics and material evolution.


Your actually defeating your own arguement. You just literally said that believing that adultery is morally wrong in one culture is the same as another culture who believes that having more than one partner is ok. Or one culture thinks SSM is morally OK and another doesn't.

How can morality be written in our hearts in such a contradictory way. It should be one law for all if its written into our hearts.

The moral precept is that when we form long term partnerships to raise children we should not cheat on those partnerships..

Another example of how morality is not genetically or materially naturalistic is that it use to be that adultery was immoral in most western nations and as you say frowned upon.

But as marriage and relationships have been weakened and less respected and now adultery is commonplace and socially acceptable even celebrated as a freedom to find ones true love. Love is love remember and if its finding true love then all wrongs are negated as finding true love is the most moral achievement.

So how can this be written in our hearts when under one generation adultery was immoral and under the next after the sexual revolution is ok to commit adultery. Under this worldview morals are changing with every generation and theres no objective morals as they are socially created.

It is still regarded as immoral to cheat on your partner.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is not a moral precept but an instinct. Animal;s do it and they are not moral creatures. The particular way humans nurture and bring up kids is layered over basic animal instincts. We are higher animals with a moral sense and spirituality that transcends this. We as humans bring morals into everything.

Actual scientists studying animals like primatologist Frans de Waal would disagree with you:

(It's a TED talk so it is accessible to any one. There is a special bonus for any philosophers reading the thread at 15:15.)

 

[Bradskii]

Actual scientists studying animals like primatologist Frans de Waal would disagree with you:

Absolutely incredible videos.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know where you got that idea from. My position has ALWAYS been that the kind of moral sense you are talking about can be explained through evolution.

This is the genetic fallacy. That is your using 'how humans evolved morality' to invalidate belief that morals may be transc endent of material evolution. Its faulty reasoning.

It would be the same as saying evolution proves belief in God is unreal. This is beyond what evolution can explain as evolutionary explanations that explain human beliefs doesn't invalidate those beliefs.

First of all, it's a lot more complex than that.

For example, in Humans, there is no gene for eye colour. It's a result of many different genes that all work together to cause a particular eye colour. And each of the genes involved in eye colour can have other influences as well. There's no single gene for anything.

THis is a genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate a position (in this case that morals are non physical in nature) by showing how a person came to hold it (in this case how evolution accounts for morality).

You keep conflating the evolution of biological phenotypes with moral abstracts. They don't equate together. Your more or less saying there is no morality and everything is predetermined by genes and other biological processes.

Morals are completely different. They are normative and transcend the physical processes. Despite a bad upbringing based on genetics we still hold the person responsible legally and morally.

Secondly, why do you think it's a matter of either beavers know how to build dams or not? It's entirely plausible that the "first" dam building beaver (I hesitate to phrase it like that, but I know of no other way to say it quickly) simple had a mutation in a gene that made them more likely to gnaw things. Considering that beavers are rodents and rodents were gnawing things for millions of years before beavers came along, this should not be a surprise. If they gnawed trees which fell and blocked rivers which gave them an advantage (blocked rivers mean a higher water level which gives them more habitat), then this basic gnawing instinct would be something evolution can select for.

The problem is we have plenty of examples where behaviour was not related to any instinct.

The other problem is that the natural instinct to nore was not designed to fell trees to make dams. That a beaver discovered that a dam makes a good home is something beyond genes. Its almost an accident that the beaver discovered dams are good habitats.

But what if the creature actually creates a good habitat by their own choices in what they think will make a good habitat. How is this genetically programmed. A change in beliefs that benefit the group can happen within a generation. This belief happens to enhance the groups wellbeing. But it came from a conscious decision in working out what was beneficial.

The choice was not made for a other reasons besides some instinct to nore or survive. Of course the atheist will attribute all this to material evolution.

So you don't need to divide beavers into "can build dams expertly" and "can't build dams at all." Ther is a whole spectrum between the two points.

Yes and thats the problem for Neo Darwiniam that there are too many other influences besides genetics that can influence evolution. A central one is the the creature is a director of their own evolution and not a passive blob of meat that is programmed to follow instincts alone.

Another non genetic influence developmental plasticity and bias. There is a degree of plasticity within phenotypes which allow living things to adapt to environments without any genetic basis to begin with. Developmental bias directs evolution down certain paths which are adaptive and beneficial.

Both these mechanisms are no genetic and directed at certain outcomes which are inherent in development. In other words living things have inbuilt abilities to adapt without random mutations and blind selection.

Not sure what you are saying here. What do you think the beavers were consciously selecting here?

That it made a good habitat. If noring the tree happened to create a dam which the beaver was never intending to create. Then at some point the beaver is choosing to make this a habitat.

The point is the genes for dam making were not there in the first place. The beaver has adapted the habitat and that habitat was passed on and not any genetic basis for dam building. Then after many generations the new behaviours and environment will influence traits and even the phenotype due to beavers now adapting to a new environment.

I think the choice and behaviour to use dams came first without any genes. Our choices can shape what genes are passed on rather than genes dictating what behaviour is produced randomly.

And genes can play a big part in the choices that are made.

To some extent but not for everything. Thats unless you think we are robots. Our lived experience tells us different. That we are agents and not puppets. Especially when it comes to abstract and transcendent aspects of life. We cannot even begin to explain these aspects of life in material terms. Its a completely different paradigm.

Well, it is true. Genetics does play an important part in behaviour. This source explains how both genetics and the environment provoke certain behaviours. In beavers, there is the environmental factor and the genetic factor, in that beavers only display the instinct for dam building when they can hear running water.

Both Environment and Genetic Makeup Influence Behavior

How do genes and the environment come together to shape animal behavior? Both play important roles. Genes capture the evolutionary responses of prior populations to selection on behavior. Environmental flexibility gives animals the opportunity to adjust to changes during their own lifetime.

www.nature.com

So theres an environmental factor and a genetic factor. So what about the 'self' factor. The agent. Do they play any role or is agency and our sense of self in the world being something that can change reality. Or is this just a trick evolution plays with our mind to make us believe that.

There are outliers, yes, but these are generally one off things and the genes that influence these do not spread throughout the population. We've even seen this with other species. There was a troop of chimpanzees that was controlled by a very aggressive male, and the rest of the tribe killed him (and ate him). SOURCE

Ok lets go back to tribal warfare. Oh wait a minute we already have with identity politics dividing society with its extreme version with the rise of antisemetism again and getting worse by the week. I mean whats going on there. This is not an outlier. In one form or another divisions, hate and violence is growing with identity politics.

So you could say we had a more stable and united society a few decades ago. Now we don't. Was this genetic or socially constructed not because of survival or whats benefitical for society. But because of ideological belief. This is not genetically or biologically based if it was all about survival of the group and all the values that go with cooperation and treating others kind, just and fair.

How can this be true if your argument is correct?

I am talking about the atheistic belief that morality is subjective and relative. You cannot have genetics fixing morals and also make mores subjective and relative at the same time. If you an atheist you logically have to support subjective morality as the determination of morality will always be by nature subjective.

To appeal to an objective moral that stands universially we would have to appeal to some greater determination that humans. That genetics, biology, naturalism. It has to transcend all these to avoid being undermined by fallible subjective humans.

The material world has its measure which is empiraclism. But ideas like morality and conscious experience have a different kind of measure which is not by empiracle sciences alone. We intuitively know this and our lived experience is evidence. But we cannot put that in a test tube. Only our first hand lived experience can tell us about morality.

Morality is a pattern of behaviours, and I have demonstrated that behaviour can be influenced by genetics.

So immoral acts are just patterns in nature and genetics. We are controlled by patterns. People know which patterns are good and which are not.. They can create new patterns. Heck they can create new genetics or wipe out genes altogether (extinction of species) through how they live and how that effects others and the planet.

 

[Kylie]

This is the genetic fallacy. That is your using 'how humans evolved morality' to invalidate belief that morals may be transc endent of material evolution. Its faulty reasoning.

It would be the same as saying evolution proves belief in God is unreal. This is beyond what evolution can explain as evolutionary explanations that explain human beliefs doesn't invalidate those beliefs.

No.

I am saying that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for morality that does not require any deity-given morality at all.

To assume that some deity gave us morality is therefore an unwarranted assumption.

It's called Occam's razor. Don't introduce an explanatory concept if it is not required.

THis is a genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate a position (in this case that morals are non physical in nature) by showing how a person came to hold it (in this case how evolution accounts for morality).

You keep conflating the evolution of biological phenotypes with moral abstracts. They don't equate together. Your more or less saying there is no morality and everything is predetermined by genes and other biological processes.

Morals are completely different. They are normative and transcend the physical processes. Despite a bad upbringing based on genetics we still hold the person responsible legally and morally.

You are begging the question by assuming that morality MUST transcend physical processes.

I've already given plenty of justification as to why morality can be explained by evolution.

The problem is we have plenty of examples where behaviour was not related to any instinct.

Okay, give me an example.

The other problem is that the natural instinct to nore was not designed to fell trees to make dams. That a beaver discovered that a dam makes a good home is something beyond genes. Its almost an accident that the beaver discovered dams are good habitats.

Again, you are assuming that it is beyond genes in order to show it is beyond genes. You accused me of committing logical fallacies, yet you seem to be the one making them.

But what if the creature actually creates a good habitat by their own choices in what they think will make a good habitat. How is this genetically programmed. A change in beliefs that benefit the group can happen within a generation. This belief happens to enhance the groups wellbeing. But it came from a conscious decision in working out what was beneficial.

You don't understand evolution.

If there is a gene which encourages a particular behaviour, and that behaviour is beneficial in some way, then the genes that are responsible for that behaviour are more likely to be passed on.

The choice was not made for a other reasons besides some instinct to nore or survive. Of course the atheist will attribute all this to material evolution.

And your justification for this claim is...?

Yes and thats the problem for Neo Darwiniam that there are too many other influences besides genetics that can influence evolution. A central one is the the creature is a director of their own evolution and not a passive blob of meat that is programmed to follow instincts alone.

So? The fact it is complex does not mean it is wrong.

And individuals do not direct their own evolution because individuals do not evolve. That is a basic concept of evolution, and if you are getting that wrong, then you clearly lack the understanding of the topic to have any sort of meaningful discussion about it.

Another non genetic influence developmental plasticity and bias. There is a degree of plasticity within phenotypes which allow living things to adapt to environments without any genetic basis to begin with. Developmental bias directs evolution down certain paths which are adaptive and beneficial.

Both these mechanisms are no genetic and directed at certain outcomes which are inherent in development. In other words living things have inbuilt abilities to adapt without random mutations and blind selection.

And even if you were right, it still doesn't show that a deity is needed.

That it made a good habitat. If noring the tree happened to create a dam which the beaver was never intending to create. Then at some point the beaver is choosing to make this a habitat.

There is a wealth of evidence that dam building is instinctual, not a conscious decision.

The point is the genes for dam making were not there in the first place. The beaver has adapted the habitat and that habitat was passed on and not any genetic basis for dam building. Then after many generations the new behaviours and environment will influence traits and even the phenotype due to beavers now adapting to a new environment.

I think the choice and behaviour to use dams came first without any genes. Our choices can shape what genes are passed on rather than genes dictating what behaviour is produced randomly.

No, they weren't there in the first place. But a small change in the genes can drastically alter behaviour. And yes, genes can and do have dramatic influences on behaviour. Behavioural genetics - Wikipedia.

To some extent but not for everything. Thats unless you think we are robots. Our lived experience tells us different. That we are agents and not puppets. Especially when it comes to abstract and transcendent aspects of life. We cannot even begin to explain these aspects of life in material terms. Its a completely different paradigm.

You appear to be holding two contradictory viewpoints.

On one hand, you agree that genes can influence behaviour.

On the other hand, you refuse to accept that moral behaviour can be explained by anything other than a deity.

So theres an environmental factor and a genetic factor. So what about the 'self' factor. The agent. Do they play any role or is agency and our sense of self in the world being something that can change reality. Or is this just a trick evolution plays with our mind to make us believe that.

The "self" factor is a combination of the genetic and environmental factor.

Ok lets go back to tribal warfare. Oh wait a minute we already have with identity politics dividing society with its extreme version with the rise of antisemetism again and getting worse by the week. I mean whats going on there. This is not an outlier. In one form or another divisions, hate and violence is growing with identity politics.

So you could say we had a more stable and united society a few decades ago. Now we don't. Was this genetic or socially constructed not because of survival or whats benefitical for society. But because of ideological belief. This is not genetically or biologically based if it was all about survival of the group and all the values that go with cooperation and treating others kind, just and fair.

So people are using ideological belief to cause division. What's your point?

I am talking about the atheistic belief that morality is subjective and relative. You cannot have genetics fixing morals and also make mores subjective and relative at the same time. If you an atheist you logically have to support subjective morality as the determination of morality will always be by nature subjective.

To appeal to an objective moral that stands universially we would have to appeal to some greater determination that humans. That genetics, biology, naturalism. It has to transcend all these to avoid being undermined by fallible subjective humans.

Yes, IF there was some objective morality it could not be explained by the evolutionary processes I've spoken of.

But there is no objective morality. The best you can do is point to some moral position that most people hold - but that is exactly what we'd expect to see if my explanation is correct anyway.

The material world has its measure which is empiraclism. But ideas like morality and conscious experience have a different kind of measure which is not by empiracle sciences alone. We intuitively know this and our lived experience is evidence. But we cannot put that in a test tube. Only our first hand lived experience can tell us about morality.

Again, you assume that it comes from some higher source in order to show that it comes from a higher source.

So immoral acts are just patterns in nature and genetics. We are controlled by patterns. People know which patterns are good and which are not.. They can create new patterns. Heck they can create new genetics or wipe out genes altogether (extinction of species) through how they live and how that effects others and the planet.

What in the world are you talking about?

 

[stevevw]

Actual scientists studying animals like primatologist Frans de Waal would disagree with you:

(It's a TED talk so it is accessible to any one. There is a special bonus for any philosophers reading the thread at 15:15.)

I don't think this is the same as human morality. There are some basic instincts such as bonding, cooperating in groups and prosocial behaviours. But if you notice they mention the monkeys have been trained so this may be more about conditioning than conscious moral behaviours.

Even if we say that our basic instincts are part of creating a sophisticated morality humans rise above animals even chimps. If we see a shark attacking someone in the water and leaving a bloody mess we know that this is the sharks instinct as an apex predator.

But if a human did this and left a bloody mess we would class them as evil incarnate and look them up away from society.

 

[stevevw]

No.

I am saying that there is a perfectly plausible explanation for morality that does not require any deity-given morality at all.

To assume that some deity gave us morality is therefore an unwarranted assumption.

It's called Occam's razor. Don't introduce an explanatory concept if it is not required.

If your using Occam's razor then you would need to abandon atheistic material explanations for morality as they complicate things and are full of contradictions. Evolution is not a perfectly reasonable explanation. I just told you its a poor arguement based on the genetic fallacy.

You are begging the question by assuming that morality MUST transcend physical processes.

Its not an assumption. Morals are not physical like a rock, correct?. Morals are a value or qualitive measure. They are by nature two different categories or aspects to reality.

We know the experience of the color red cannot be reduced to the quantitative measures of nerve and light signals. Its the same for morality. Its in the realm of conscious experiences and determinations which cannot be explained by materialism.

I've already given plenty of justification as to why morality can be explained by evolution.

Not really, I don't find them compelling. Let me ask, are people morally accountable for their behaviour regardless of evolution.

Okay, give me an example.

I've already done this. For example an individual or group and even a culture can choose a particular lifestyle to improve their health and wellbeing. They have changed from one siet to another in an instant or a generation. Or a culture chooses a belief that improves their wellbeing and health.

These are value judgements which are subjective and relative and yet all are possible influences on behaviour. They cannot be explained by evolution as there's too many variables. What may be good for survival in one situation may be seen as immoral in another.

Again, you are assuming that it is beyond genes in order to show it is beyond genes. You accused me of committing logical fallacies, yet you seem to be the one making them.

Theres a difference though. We are both assuming our beliefs that morality is either naturalistic in nature or spiritual and transcedent in nature. Two different aspects of reality but we are both assuming they are correct or reality.

The difference is the nature of morality is spiritual and transcendent of materialism so my assumption is in line with this. Where as yours is not so using materialism the basis for morality is logically impossible because they are two different aspects of reality.

You don't understand evolution.

So you don't think our conscious decisions can make a difference to evolution. We can't inject ourselves to over ride our genes and biology.

If there is a gene which encourages a particular behaviour, and that behaviour is beneficial in some way, then the genes that are responsible for that behaviour are more likely to be passed on.

But we just went through thius. The genetic basis for beavers to nore was not the basis for them to build dams. Its something they discovered and then took on and then later it was genetically cemented.

If we choose to eat good food that gives us a benefit then this is not because of genetics. Its a conscious choice to ensure a better life. Then there may be genetic that are passed on after the diet has been implemented within the whole group and the benefits pay off.

Like I said genes, neurons and biology don't care about morality but only survival. If something we consider immoral provides the benefit thern its used regardless of its moral implications.

And your justification for this claim is...?

I gave those justifications. The simple fact that people or groups can choose different moral behaviours at the same time shows theres no biological basis for morality that would cause all humans to have the same biology or genes passed down. Its like saying that there were many different sexes being passed down. Which is biologically impossible,

So? The fact it is complex does not mean it is wrong.

And individuals do not direct their own evolution because individuals do not evolve. That is a basic concept of evolution, and if you are getting that wrong, then you clearly lack the understanding of the topic to have any sort of meaningful discussion about it.

Actually how do you know population genetics is correct. This has come into question in recent years with new studies. There are a variety of ways creatures behave and change and multi lines of selection.

Some of which are non genetic and based on the individual or group choices of reconstructive behaviour of environments. Or just part of the development system that allows flexibility to adapt to new environments rather than being genetiucally modified to envirornments. So perhaps you need to update your understanding.

And even if you were right, it still doesn't show that a deity is needed.

No and I am not bothered about that at the moment. But showing that morals belong to a different category, paradigm or aspect of reality means it undermines the materialist claims that everything reduces back to material processes like neurons, genetics and biology.

It means we have to be open to some different kind of reality that is beyond the material. Whether you want to call it an epiphenomena, spiritual, transcendent aspects of reality, abstract truth principles they are not explained by material reductionism.

So as far as atheist morality there can be no objective moral truth beyond the material explanations and material explanations are a subjective belief based on an assumption that ultimate reality is material without any immaterialism. But this is a belief in every way believing that ultimate reality is immaterial. Both are impossible to prove because we cannot bet outside ourselves to objective measure this.

If we are using Occams Razor then the simplest explanation is to go with exactly what we intuite and actually experience in reality. Its direct and doesn't need rationalisations layered over the top which complicate things. That is we live like morality is beyond the material and we treat it like morals are unwritten laws like physical laws. Except they have no physical basis.

I might continue the rest in a seperate post. Regards Steve.

 

[BCP1928]

If your using Occam's razor then you would need to abandon atheistic material explanations for morality as they complicate things and are full of contradictions. Evolution is not a perfectly reasonable explanation. I just told you its a poor arguement based on the genetic fallacy.

Its not an assumption. Morals are not physical like a rock, correct?. Morals are a value or qualitive measure. They are by nature two different categories or aspects to reality.

We know the experience of the color red cannot be reduced to the quantitative measures of nerve and light signals. Its the same for morality. Its in the realm of conscious experiences and determinations which cannot be explained by materialism.

Not really, I don't find them compelling. Let me ask, are people morally accountable for their behaviour regardless of evolution.

I've already done this. For example an individual or group and even a culture can choose a particular lifestyle to improve their health and wellbeing. They have changed from one siet to another in an instant or a generation. Or a culture chooses a belief that improves their wellbeing and health.

These are value judgements which are subjective and relative and yet all are possible influences on behaviour. They cannot be explained by evolution as there's too many variables. What may be good for survival in one situation may be seen as immoral in another.

Theres a difference though. We are both assuming our beliefs that morality is either naturalistic in nature or spiritual and transcedent in nature. Two different aspects of reality but we are both assuming they are correct or reality.

The difference is the nature of morality is spiritual and transcendent of materialism so my assumption is in line with this. Where as yours is not so using materialism the basis for morality is logically impossible because they are two different aspects of reality.

So you don't think our conscious decisions can make a difference to evolution. We can't inject ourselves to over ride our genes and biology.

But we just went through thius. The genetic basis for beavers to nore was not the basis for them to build dams. Its something they discovered and then took on and then later it was genetically cemented.

If we choose to eat good food that gives us a benefit then this is not because of genetics. Its a conscious choice to ensure a better life. Then there may be genetic that are passed on after the diet has been implemented within the whole group and the benefits pay off.

Like I said genes, neurons and biology don't care about morality but only survival. If something we consider immoral provides the benefit thern its used regardless of its moral implications.

I gave those justifications. The simple fact that people or groups can choose different moral behaviours at the same time shows theres no biological basis for morality that would cause all humans to have the same biology or genes passed down. Its like saying that there were many different sexes being passed down. Which is biologically impossible,

Actually how do you know population genetics is correct. This has come into question in recent years with new studies. There are a variety of ways creatures behave and change and multi lines of selection.

Some of which are non genetic and based on the individual or group choices of reconstructive behaviour of environments. Or just part of the development system that allows flexibility to adapt to new environments rather than being genetiucally modified to envirornments. So perhaps you need to update your understanding.

No and I am not bothered about that at the moment. But showing that morals belong to a different category, paradigm or aspect of reality means it undermines the materialist claims that everything reduces back to material processes like neurons, genetics and biology.

It means we have to be open to some different kind of reality that is beyond the material. Whether you want to call it an epiphenomena, spiritual, transcendent aspects of reality, abstract truth principles they are not explained by material reductionism.

So as far as atheist morality there can be no objective moral truth beyond the material explanations and material explanations are a subjective belief based on an assumption that ultimate reality is material without any immaterialism. But this is a belief in every way believing that ultimate reality is immaterial. Both are impossible to prove because we cannot bet outside ourselves to objective measure this.

If we are using Occams Razor then the simplest explanation is to go with exactly what we intuite and actually experience in reality. Its direct and doesn't need rationalisations layered over the top which complicate things. That is we live like morality is beyond the material and we treat it like morals are unwritten laws like physical laws. Except they have no physical basis.

I might continue the rest in a seperate post. Regards Steve.

The reason that what you wrote in this post is largely incoherent is, I think, that you haven't come to grips with the mind/body problem. You seem to be taking the position of a substance dualist, but as if it was axiomatic. The other thing that makes your posts confusing is that you appear to be confusing the concepts of objective morality and a divine command ethic. I think you are beginning to realize that yourself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If your using Occam's razor then you would need to abandon atheistic material explanations for morality as they complicate things and are full of contradictions. Evolution is not a perfectly reasonable explanation. I just told you its a poor arguement based on the genetic fallacy.

This is either the Fallacy fallacy (thinking all errors or incorrect conclusions are the result of fallacies) or the WLC fallacy (trusting Bill Craig as a sage). You literally put "genetic fallacy" under her correct description of the genetics of eye color which was offered as an example of a complex genetic system.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think this is the same as human morality. There are some basic instincts such as bonding, cooperating in groups and prosocial behaviours.

And that's why humans *NEED* a morality, just like many other creatures.

But if you notice they mention the monkeys have been trained so this may be more about conditioning than conscious moral behaviours.

They were trained to perform a task for a reward. Then the experiment could be conducted on how they dealt with various scenarios. The experiments were carefully designed to isolate the behaviors being studied.

Even if we say that our basic instincts are part of creating a sophisticated morality humans rise above animals even chimps.

I find some human "morals" to be lower that those of many other animals.

If we see a shark attacking someone in the water and leaving a bloody mess we know that this is the sharks instinct as an apex predator.

Not a moral question.

But if a human did this and left a bloody mess we would class them as evil incarnate and look them up away from society.

For killing/butchering/eating a prey creature of different species? I think not. The hunter would be lauded for providing food and the butcher compensated for performing a task.

 

[Kylie]

If your using Occam's razor then you would need to abandon atheistic material explanations for morality as they complicate things and are full of contradictions. Evolution is not a perfectly reasonable explanation. I just told you its a poor arguement based on the genetic fallacy.

And you were wrong. Evolution has a huge amount of supporting evidence and I explained how it can account for moral behaviours.

Its not an assumption. Morals are not physical like a rock, correct?. Morals are a value or qualitive measure. They are by nature two different categories or aspects to reality.

We know the experience of the color red cannot be reduced to the quantitative measures of nerve and light signals. Its the same for morality. Its in the realm of conscious experiences and determinations which cannot be explained by materialism.

That's not what I meant and you know it.

Not really, I don't find them compelling. Let me ask, are people morally accountable for their behaviour regardless of evolution.

I honestly don't care if you find my arguments compelling, because your opinion means very little to me.

As to whether people are morally accountable, it's a lot more complicated than you want it to be. Listen to this: What should happen when someone with a brain tumor breaks the law?

I've already done this. For example an individual or group and even a culture can choose a particular lifestyle to improve their health and wellbeing. They have changed from one siet to another in an instant or a generation. Or a culture chooses a belief that improves their wellbeing and health.

These are value judgements which are subjective and relative and yet all are possible influences on behaviour. They cannot be explained by evolution as there's too many variables. What may be good for survival in one situation may be seen as immoral in another.

A SPECIFIC example.

Theres a difference though. We are both assuming our beliefs that morality is either naturalistic in nature or spiritual and transcedent in nature. Two different aspects of reality but we are both assuming they are correct or reality.

The difference is the nature of morality is spiritual and transcendent of materialism so my assumption is in line with this. Where as yours is not so using materialism the basis for morality is logically impossible because they are two different aspects of reality.

Oh look at you, claiming that "the nature of morality is spiritual and transcendent of materialism" as though you've actually provided erven a single shred of actual evidence to support that claim.

So you don't think our conscious decisions can make a difference to evolution. We can't inject ourselves to over ride our genes and biology.

No, they can not.

No matter what my conscious thoughts are, I can not evolve wings.

Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve as the genome changes over many generations.

You literally do not know enough about evolution to have any kind of discussion about it. You are like someone who takes a car mechanics class and keeps asking where the hole in the floor is because you think cars operate on Flintstone's rules.

But we just went through thius. The genetic basis for beavers to nore was not the basis for them to build dams. Its something they discovered and then took on and then later it was genetically cemented.

First, it's gnaw, not nore.

Secondly, you can make the claim all you want, but the gnawing is a behaviour and there is a huge amount of evidence to support that there is a strong genetic component to behaviours.

Thirdly, you are again making an assertion and providing no evidence at all to back it up.

If we choose to eat good food that gives us a benefit then this is not because of genetics. Its a conscious choice to ensure a better life. Then there may be genetic that are passed on after the diet has been implemented within the whole group and the benefits pay off.

Like I said genes, neurons and biology don't care about morality but only survival. If something we consider immoral provides the benefit thern its used regardless of its moral implications.

You don't get it.

Why do we as a species like food with lots of fat and sugar? Because in the past, for the vast majority of our existence, Humans have not had a reliable way of getting food. It was only with the advent of agriculture and farming that we had a reliable means of making sure we could get food. Before that, we had to hunt with no guarantee we could make a kill, and we had to gather we no guarantee that we would find those berries we like.

So we had to go for the best foods. We had to go for the ones richest in sugars and fats because those allowed us to store in our bodies the most nutrition. That's why we craze sweet and fatty foods as much as we do, because we EVOLVED to have the genes that made us more predisposed to that kind of behaviour.

If there was an individual with genes that made them more likely to prefer less sugary or less fatty foods, then those individuals would have been more likely to die during times of hardship.

If you had bothered to do even the slightest bit of research on this topic you would know this.

I gave those justifications. The simple fact that people or groups can choose different moral behaviours at the same time shows theres no biological basis for morality that would cause all humans to have the same biology or genes passed down. Its like saying that there were many different sexes being passed down. Which is biologically impossible,

And you are wrong.

Actually how do you know population genetics is correct. This has come into question in recent years with new studies.

Please cite these studies.

There are a variety of ways creatures behave and change and multi lines of selection.

Some of which are non genetic and based on the individual or group choices of reconstructive behaviour of environments. Or just part of the development system that allows flexibility to adapt to new environments rather than being genetiucally modified to envirornments. So perhaps you need to update your understanding.

I never said there weren't. But that doesn't change the fact that genetics plays a major role.

No and I am not bothered about that at the moment. But showing that morals belong to a different category, paradigm or aspect of reality means it undermines the materialist claims that everything reduces back to material processes like neurons, genetics and biology.

A different paradigm of reality...

Including trendy buzzwords won't make your argument any better.

It means we have to be open to some different kind of reality that is beyond the material. Whether you want to call it an epiphenomena, spiritual, transcendent aspects of reality, abstract truth principles they are not explained by material reductionism.

Maybe one day you'll provide evidence.

So as far as atheist morality there can be no objective moral truth beyond the material explanations and material explanations are a subjective belief based on an assumption that ultimate reality is material without any immaterialism. But this is a belief in every way believing that ultimate reality is immaterial. Both are impossible to prove because we cannot bet outside ourselves to objective measure this.\

Even among the religious there is no objective morality.

If we are using Occams Razor then the simplest explanation is to go with exactly what we intuite and actually experience in reality.

That's a terrible idea. Intuition would say that a heavy object falls faster than a light one, and that's wrong.

Its direct and doesn't need rationalisations layered over the top which complicate things. That is we live like morality is beyond the material and we treat it like morals are unwritten laws like physical laws. Except they have no physical basis.

So you prefer a simple false explanation rather than a complicated true one. Got it.

 

[stevevw]

You are wasting a lot of time either arguing against what no-one is arguing for. Or simply repeating what everyone is explaining to you.

01. How we start off when we are born is almost entirely due to evolution. Various aspects of what we do, almost from the moment of birth, are driven by our genetic make up. Rather obviously as we haven't been around to absorb any aspects of the world into which we have been born. So the main driver of our behaviour is nature.
Do you understand that?

Yes I understand this but morality is different. We do have a more sense when born which is not taught or caused by evolution. You can't get an "ought out of an is" as Hume says. Biology and genetics are the (is) and morality is the (ought). The (is) can never explain the (ought). Its a simple as that. Its conflating two completely different categories.

David Hume: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.

https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04/08/science-and-morals-can-morality-be-deduced-from-the-facts-of-science/​

The statement "morality is not caused by evolution" is generally considered accurate. Evolution does not directly dictate what is considered morally right or wrong.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/682188

02. And as we grow, we absorb the ways of acting with others via our experiences of watching others interact and how they interact with us. That's nurture.

Do you understand that?

Yes and this does not explain our innate sense of moraility. Studies done show infants have their own sophisticated morality that has not been taught to them. Culture only builds on top of this innate morality and will direct it into the different cultural beliefs. But the moral sense was there when born.

You can't make sense of a moral system without having a sense of right and wrong in the firsddt place and that cannot be taught as its not in itself a thing but a sense, a belief or inner conviction that is part of our very being. That has to be there to begin with. Otherwise morals would seem like just untethered statements about the world.

So there's a lot that is evolutionary driven and a lot that is due to our upbringing. Pick any link on 'Nature versus nurture' and the average percentages noted will be around 50:50.

Believe me I will use our natural instincts and inclinations when the evidence is warrented. Like the sexed brain and differences in gender and how this underpins differences between the sexes and not just social norms.

But like all these natural inclinations they only go so far. If we there is some other dimension to reality beyond the material world like consciousness beyond brain or a god then it makes sense that to be even able to experience the world and morality we need the physical aspects of reality to do that.

But with humans especially there comes a point where the reality they experience transcends the material world. This cannot be accounted for by genetics or biology or neurons. These physical aspects may contribute in getting humans to a place where they can transcend the objective world. THis idea is not just held within religion but also the sciences.

Now...where is the problem that you have with that? Don't wander off into the weeds or down rabbit holes. Just answer that question.

Like Hume said, "you can't get an ought from an is". Whatever morality is its not explained by the objective physical world of genes, biology and neuron firing.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes I understand this but morality is different. We do have a more sense when born which is not taught or caused by evolution.

I assume that your 'more sense' is 'moral sense' (for heaven's sake, please proof read your posts before hitting send). So OK, we both agree that we have some innate moral sense. That's the nature.

Studies done show infants have their own sophisticated morality that has not been taught to them. Culture only builds on top of this innate morality and will direct it into the different cultural beliefs. But the moral sense was there when born.

Yes again. Someof the moral sense was there to start with (we just agreed with that). And that is built on by how and where and when we grow up. Via the culture in which we live. And that is the nurture part of the explanation.

Everything else you said was just repeating yourself. So there is no problem. The only fly in the moral ointment is that you'd believe that the innate aspect of it is God given and obviously I wouldn't agree. But hey, each to his own.

So...we have nature and nurture. What exactly are you arguing about?