Clockwork Oranges

[Wiccan_Child]

Many atheists say that what we call "morality" is genetically coded in humans. If that's true, we should, given further information and technology, be able to tweak our coding. Atheists I've talked to usually agree that coding for moral behavior is "good", because survival is good. So if and when human genetics are so thoroughly understood that we can engineer good humans, should we do so? Should we make future humans good, or is freedom a higher good?

I think that would lead to a circular definition of 'good': since we can muck about with our genetically predisposed sense of morality, what we 'should' do becomes a moot question. Though one could argue that our 'original' morality is what we should maintain as 'the' morality.
Anyway, I'd say that freedom is not necessarily mutually exclusive to being a good person. And if freedom is a 'higher good', then genetically engineering humans to be good necessarily entails that we make them as free as possible, no?

 

[Chesterton]

I think that would lead to a circular definition of 'good': since we can muck about with our genetically predisposed sense of morality, what we 'should' do becomes a moot question. Though one could argue that our 'original' morality is what we should maintain as 'the' morality.

I don't understand. Why would this ability change our definition of "good"?

Anyway, I'd say that freedom is not necessarily mutually exclusive to being a good person.

Well, only if a person always freely chose to be good, if that's what you mean.

And if freedom is a 'higher good', then genetically engineering humans to be good necessarily entails that we make them as free as possible, no?

Agreed. But that's part of what I'm asking: do you believe freedom is the higher good?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I don't understand. Why would this ability change our definition of "good"?

Well, if morality is defined by our genes, and our genes can be altered, we can alter our morality. Thus, you're basically asking "What should our morals be?". But, 'should' is a moral consideration: what 'ought' to be, as opposed to what 'is', is deduced from morality. To put it another way, you're asking "What morals are moral?"

To be honest, I was trying to pre-empt a trap I thought you had planned

Well, only if a person always freely chose to be good, if that's what you mean.

Or is incapable of choosing bad. I cannot choose to fly, thus I cannot choose to stay on the ground. But that doesn't mean I'm immobile: I can choose what ground-based locomotion I want.

Agreed. But that's part of what I'm asking: do you believe freedom is the higher good?

It's the highest good we can hope for, since we are* free, and the alternative is the active oppression of free individuals. But, this oppression is only bad because one cannot have fulfilling, happy life if one's freedom is inhibited (maybe I'm projecting here). If one were omnipotent, one could limit the freedoms of others to the extent that they cannot choose to harm another - not because they want to be can't, but because they can no more choose to harm than they can choose to fly, or divide by zero, or imagine 11-dimensional space. That's a subtle difference in the nature of freedom and morality, to me, that only really becomes important when one discusses the problem of evil.

*Or may as well be, and should act as such. If we're not, we never had any choice in the first place. If we are, then we have a choice, so choosing necessarily means we're right.

 

[Ayersy]

Morality isn't coded in our DNA, it's learned from birth. Morality is just another system of control (A necessary one), that society uses to control the masses. That's why morality changes along with society.

 

[Chesterton]

Well, if morality is defined by our genes, and our genes can be altered, we can alter our morality. Thus, you're basically asking "What should our morals be?". But, 'should' is a moral consideration: what 'ought' to be, as opposed to what 'is', is deduced from morality. To put it another way, you're asking "What morals are moral?"

That's an important consideration of course, but need not enter into this question. I'm talking about, what if we cold enforce the basics humans tend to agree on. What if we could "make" people who couldn't cheat, steal, murder, etc., and who couldn't help but help another person in need, and stuff like that.

To be honest, I was trying to pre-empt a trap I thought you had planned

Well of course I'm setting a trap, silly.

It's the highest good we can hope for, since we are* free, and the alternative is the active oppression of free individuals. But, this oppression is only bad because one cannot have fulfilling, happy life if one's freedom is inhibited (maybe I'm projecting here). If one were omnipotent, one could limit the freedoms of others to the extent that they cannot choose to harm another - not because they want to be can't, but because they can no more choose to harm than they can choose to fly, or divide by zero, or imagine 11-dimensional space. That's a subtle difference in the nature of freedom and morality, to me, that only really becomes important when one discusses the problem of evil.

So you're comparing the ability to fly with the ability to do evil. We can want to fly, but we cannot fly. And you think God could have made us so that we could want to do evil, but not be able to do it? I guess it's a question of physics. We're physically incapable of flying, but say I see a stranger leave his wallet on a park bench. How could I be physically unable to pick it up and keep it, when I am physically able to pick it up and return it to him? It seems the will would have to be the "mechanism" tampered with. It seems (unless I've misunderstood) you're really advocating for limiting freedom of will, whereas in your previous post you said freedom was the highest good.

Plus, the idea that we could want to do evil but be unable to is problematic. If a man wants to rape women, but is unable because he's locked up in prison, we wouldn't say he's "good" for not raping, we'd just say he's unable to rape.

*Or may as well be, and should act as such. If we're not, we never had any choice in the first place. If we are, then we have a choice, so choosing necessarily means we're right.

Right, I'm assuming free will here.

 

[Chesterton]

Morality isn't coded in our DNA, it's learned from birth. Morality is just another system of control (A necessary one), that society uses to control the masses. That's why morality changes along with society.

If that's the case, we would never have come to make moral judgments. The mafia and the Red Cross would be equivalent; just two different ways of living.

 

[Belk]

Pretty much every atheist who believes in the TOE that I've talked to about it here on CF has said this to me. Dawkins and other prominent scientists have written about it. I'm surprised you haven't heard this.

Me as well. I'll do some research, thanks.

If our morality can stand in stark contrast to what we have encoded, then how can we say our morality is encoded?

Good question. I don't think it is and I have a hard time believing others do as well, but I will look into it.