Evolution and Morality just isn't logical

[dóxatotheó]

God is appealing to principles that exist outside of himself, making morality objective but non-dependent on God.

Non-sequitur I already explained how morals exist stop trying to put me in a dilemma with two positions that arent held. God essence cause morals existence not the opposite.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

We cannot resonate moral ideals from nothing, something from nothing is literally always gonna be illogical friend, I mean moral absolutes seem to be a reconcile for our nature for moral awareness don you agree?.
That we always had awareness of right and wrong.

And who exactly is saying that we "resonate" moral ideals from nothing? Certainly not me. I've said we get moral principles by observing reality and isolating those facts relevant to life and its requirements by means of concepts and principles. That's not nothing.

How does reality create a code of conduct, reality is means of existence, it cannot make rules and guidelines for an ethical standpoint from nothing. What do you define reality as?

Reality doesn't create a code of conduct. Reality sets the conditions by which man must live. Man creates a code of values by perceiving reality and identifying and integrating what he perceives into concepts and then he integrates those concepts into principles. I perceive and identify by means of reason the facts relevant to my life and its requirements. I induce principles to pull all that knowledge together into a whole. Reality can not do this, only the part of reality that possesses a conceptual form of consciousness. Man's mind is the source of morality. Reality is the source of the facts which that morality identifies and integrates.

I define reality as that which is real.

I mean all modern day philosophies on morals and ethics all seem to come to the conclusion that man moral awareness are not subjective.

Not true at all. Most modern philosophies and most philosophies, in general, deny objectivity is possible for man. There is one exception.

Moral absolute philosophy is what I mean.
perceivable reality is mere knowledge of ones own existence not others or all in existence, objective reality isn't possible in the quantum realm.

This is a tired old canard. Solipsism is so easily refuted. It commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. According to you, I am to know that that there is such a thing as objectivity, that there is a quantum realm, that objectivity is impossible at the quantum realm, I'm supposed to understand concepts such as "realm", "others", "perceivable reality", etc. I'm supposed to know all of this but I'm not to know that anything I perceive is real except for my own existence. Absurd. Your statements make use of concepts while denying the perceptual level of consciousness on which all concepts depend. This is the fallacy of the stolen concept. It is self-refuting.

Personal Opinions on issues would never make an answer any less disingenuous, you know that moral absolutes is as possible as personal perception of good and bad.

Please do not tell me what I know. All valid principles are absolutes because the facts which they identify are absolutes. All facts are absolutes because existence is an absolute.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

@The happy Objectivist do you affrim ayn rand philosophy?

Of course, its true. Why wouldn't I affirm it. You do too to an extent. With every statement you make you affirm its starting point, the axioms, and the primacy of existence.

 

[gaara4158]

Non-sequitur I already explained how morals exist stop trying to put me in a dilemma with two positions that arent held. God essence cause morals existence not the opposite.

If God’s essence causes morals to exist, then morals are subjective. They are subject to whatever God’s essence happens to be. This is a well-known bind in moral philosophy and it cannot be escaped merely by claiming it’s God’s nature, essence, being, or anything else.

 

[dóxatotheó]

They are subject to whatever God’s essence happens to be.

But morals arent subjective to the essence as the essence isn't a person they arent defined from the essence they always existed cause the essence thats the difference its objective because for the moral system to be objective, moral law must stem from a source external to humanity. which it does in this position.

 

[dóxatotheó]

And who exactly is saying that we "resonate" moral ideals from nothing? Certainly not me. I've said we get moral principles by observing reality and isolating those facts relevant to life and its requirements by means of concepts and principles. That's not nothing.

The study of metaphysics is to try and derive objective reality from the subjective reality that human beings experience through their senses and consciousness.
We perceive time and space a certain way from our perspective because of our intuitions but basically an alien race on another planet might perceive these same concepts differently. This does not mean that time and space do not exist only that our perceptions of them are subjective.

Reality doesn't create a code of conduct. Reality sets the conditions by which man must live. Man creates a code of values by perceiving reality and identifying and integrating what he perceives into concepts and then he integrates those concepts into principles. I perceive and identify by means of reason the facts relevant to my life and its requirements. I induce principles to pull all that knowledge together into a whole. Reality can not do this, only the part of reality that possesses a conceptual form of consciousness. Man's mind is the source of morality. Reality is the source of the facts which that morality identifies and integrates.

Reality is the source of existence not the source of morality as shown through each man from person to person showing that truly the idea as a whole that reality gives us the awareness of all things right and wrong is completely fallacious in itself.

Not true at all. Most modern philosophies and most philosophies, in general, deny objectivity is possible for man. There is one exception.

Modern philosophies deny objectivity originating from man itself.

This is a tired old canard. Solipsism is so easily refuted. It commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. According to you, I am to know that that there is such a thing as objectivity, that there is a quantum realm, that objectivity is impossible at the quantum realm, I'm supposed to understand concepts such as "realm", "others", "perceivable reality", etc. I'm supposed to know all of this but I'm not to know that anything I perceive is real except for my own existence. Absurd. Your statements make use of concepts while denying the perceptual level of consciousness on which all concepts depend. This is the fallacy of the stolen concept. It is self-refuting.

In Brukner's theory proposal, observers do not need to be conscious, they must merely be able to establish facts in the form of a measurement outcome. An inanimate detector would therefore be a valid observer. And textbook quantum mechanics gives us no reason to believe that a detector, which can be made as small as a few atoms, should not be described as a quantum object just like a photon. It may also be possible that standard quantum mechanics does not apply at large length scales, but testing that is a separate problem.

This experiment therefore shows that, at least for local models of quantum mechanics, we need to rethink our notion of objectivity. The facts we experience in our macroscopic world appear to remain safe, but a major question arises over how existing interpretations of quantum mechanics can accommodate subjective facts.

Some physicists see these new developments as bolstering interpretations that allow more than one outcome to occur for an observation, for example the existence of parallel universes in which each outcome happens. Others see it as compelling evidence for intrinsically observer-dependent theories such as Quantum Bayesianism, in which an agent's actions and experiences are central concerns of the theory. But yet others take this as a strong pointer that perhaps quantum mechanics will break down above certain complexity scales.

A full thesis on that specific argument
To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word "doublethink" involved the use of doublethink. (1.3.20)

Please do not tell me what I know. All valid principles are absolutes because the facts which they identify are absolutes. All facts are absolutes because existence is an absolute.

I never read on absolute existence yet to give a hard argument against to be honest but, Anything other than it is actually a reflection and manifestation of that one original being. Proponents of the absolute existence speak of an absolute existence stripped of any particularity whatsoever which is free of all conditions, an essence that cannot be limited by any conditions.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Of course, its true. Why wouldn't I affirm it. You do too to an extent. With every statement you make you affirm its starting point, the axioms, and the primacy of existence.

huh? our moral decisions and judgments cannot be guided exclusively (or even primarily) by an explicit ethical philosophy, so human cognition cannot be guided exclusively (or even primarily) by an explicit epistemological philosophy. The human brain has evolved several very sophisticated cognitive systems that have been fine tuned by centuries of experience to help human beings navigate the complex social and natural environments of everyday life. While these cognitive systems may be a bit of an evolutionary kludge, since they are actually adapted to the complexity of the real world, for that reason alone they will often produce more useful output than consciously directed thought. Because of the conscious mind's incapacity to grapple with complexity, emotive centered systems of cognition arising from the cognitive unconscious (i.e., "intuition") often must be used instead. Not necessarily in all circumstances, of course. But in quite a few. There is nothing in the Objectivist epistemology that will help you with "intuition." If anything, Rand looked down upon intuition as "emotional"; and Rand, as is well known, did not consider emotions a "valid" form of cognition.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

huh? our moral decisions and judgments cannot be guided exclusively (or even primarily) by an explicit ethical philosophy, so human cognition cannot be guided exclusively (or even primarily) by an explicit epistemological philosophy. The human brain has evolved several very sophisticated cognitive systems that have been fine tuned by centuries of experience to help human beings navigate the complex social and natural environments of everyday life. While these cognitive systems may be a bit of an evolutionary kludge, since they are actually adapted to the complexity of the real world, for that reason alone they will often produce more useful output than consciously directed thought. Because of the conscious mind's incapacity to grapple with complexity, emotive centered systems of cognition arising from the cognitive unconscious (i.e., "intuition") often must be used instead. Not necessarily in all circumstances, of course. But in quite a few. There is nothing in the Objectivist epistemology that will help you with "intuition." If anything, Rand looked down upon intuition as "emotional"; and Rand, as is well known, did not consider emotions a "valid" form of cognition.

I don't know where this came from. I never said that our moral decisions can't be exclusively guided by an explicit ethical or epistemological philosophy? Maybe you are replying to someone else here. No, the main problem is that hardly anyone has an explicit ethical or epistemological theory. In my experience, most people hold a set of vague and unvalidated ideas which they have picked up from random sources and never really thought about.

I was just answering your question about whether or not I affirm Ayn Rand's philosophy. Most certainly yes.

Are you saying that some evolutionary system of ideas is better than consciously directed thought? Did you arrive at this conclusion by means of non-consciously directed thought? Consciously directed means oriented towards truth.

I completely object to the notion that knowledge is implanted in our brains by evolution. No, knowledge is the end result of a process of cognition that can only be performed by an individual mind. One can study the ideas of others and from the past but each and every one of them must be validated by one's self before they can be considered knowledge. Not just the ideas but all the ideas that they rest on all the way back to an objective starting point. It is in this way that man can and does achieve certainty. It's called thinking in terms of essentials. It is a powerful way of thinking. Ayn Rand was the master of thinking in terms of essentials.

You are right that Ayn Rand Rand looked down on intuition and she did not consider emotions as a means of cognition. Intuition is a feeling and emotions are derivative. They are your response to new knowledge based on prior thinking. She held, and I do too, that reason is man's only means of obtaining and validating knowledge. She held reality as an absolute and reason as an absolute. Her ethics and politics are derived from these two absolutes.

To hold that intuition and emotions are valid means of cognition is to affirm the primacy of consciousness which is false.

As for man's inability to grasp complexity, that's precisely what reason is all about. Concepts reduce an unlimited amount of percepual data into a single, understandable unit. To refute the notion that man can't deal with complexity just look at your computer. Or better yet look at the landing of a probe on a comet millions of kilometers from Earth. Do you really think that faced with the complexities of these endeavors that men and women abandoned reason and instead made use of feelings and emotions?! Or do you think that these achievements are the product of the most precise and scrupulous use of reason in the history of man? Did they determine the orbital dynamics by means of intuition? Did the probe arrive because the scientists wanted it to?

I highly recommend that you study Objectivism. It will change your life.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I don't know where this came from. I never said that our moral decisions can't be exclusively guided by an explicit ethical or epistemological philosophy? Maybe you are replying to someone else here. No, the main problem is that hardly anyone has an explicit ethical or epistemological theory. In my experience, most people hold a set of vague and unvalidated ideas which they have picked up from random sources and never really thought about.

I had this thesis on Ayn Rands position in my notes.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I had this thesis on Ayn Rands position in my notes.

OK, that makes sense. By the way is it your thesis or someone else's?

 

[dóxatotheó]

OK, that makes sense. By the way is it your thesis or someone else's?

someone elses

 

[The happy Objectivist]

someone elses

If you have a link I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[dóxatotheó]

If you have a link I'd be interested in reading it.

Has Objectivism Been Refuted?, The Atlas Society | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Primary reasons for not becoming an Objectivist

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Has Objectivism Been Refuted?, The Atlas Society | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Primary reasons for not becoming an Objectivist

Thank you. Oh yes, I'm familiar with Nyquist. I think there are a few articles there that I haven't read, so thanks. I'll be sure and check them out. I will try to interact with some of his points in the article you linked but unfortunately I can't do a point by point, thorough analysis just because I don't have the time and this thread really wouldn't be the place to do this. If only there were a general philosophy forum here that was active. But from what I remember Nyquist is hopeless. It's been a while since I've read any of his stuff but I remember his blatant misrepresentations of objectivism and purposeful misunderstanding. But I could be thinking of another person.

If you are interested I'm going to link to my favorite Objectivist on the internet. His blog is one of the best resources on the web for Objectivist writings. He really knows his stuff and the comments sections of many of his posts are highly entertaining to read. Lately, though he has stopped getting theist commenters and I really miss the interactions with these commenters by Bethrick. His blog deals with presuppositionalism primarily. I think they've given up. Anyway his blog is called Incinerating Presuppositionalism.

Incinerating Presuppositionalism

 

[godenver1]

I'm not entirely sure that evolution and morality are at odds necessarily; maybe they are, as different concepts, but I don't know enough to comment on that.

What I do know is that it is nearly impossible to hold to any form of objective morality apart from religion. And, really, it's sad when one can't philosophically state that a heinous moral offence is 'objectively wrong'.

Generally, though, in my experience, those who hold tightly to theistic evolution tend to be more liberal with the absolute nature of God's Word; and that begins to endanger concepts of objective morality, too.

 

[gaara4158]

But morals arent subjective to the essence as the essence isn't a person they arent defined from the essence they always existed cause the essence thats the difference its objective because for the moral system to be objective, moral law must stem from a source external to humanity. which it does in this position.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. If we’re treating this “essence” as some impersonal feature of God that provides an objective basis for human morality, then it is necessarily the case that this essence is either A) subject to God’s will, or B) independent from God’s will. The dilemma applies in full force here.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. If we’re treating this “essence” as some impersonal feature of God

Essence isnt an act so how are you equivocating that idea to impersonal features.

then it is necessarily the case that this essence is either A) subject to God’s will, or B) independent from God’s will.

The Essence is God being not an energy of God, Gods will is an energy not an essence they are distinct.

The dilemma applies in full force here.

Nah you seem to think the essence is a force and not what God being is

 

[dóxatotheó]

enerally, though, in my experience, those who hold tightly to theistic evolution tend to be more liberal with the absolute nature of God's Word; and that begins to endanger concepts of objective morality, too.

objective morality is a fact. No matter if evolution is true or not.

What I do know is that it is nearly impossible to hold to any form of objective morality apart from religion. And, really, it's sad when one can't philosophically state that a heinous moral offence is 'objectively wrong'.

@The happy Objectivist would debate you on that because thats not really the case.

 

[o_mlly]

Evolutionist moralist would argue that evolution “programs” different species to accept different moral codes ...

I would think the first logical error is the claim that species other than man have moral codes. Wanting to test this claim, I asked my dog Fido what was his moral code. He just sniffed the air and quickly laid his head back down. The cat didn't even acknowledge my question.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would think the first logical error is the claim that species other than man have moral codes. Wanting to test this claim, I asked my dog Fido what was his moral code. He just sniffed the air and quickly laid his head back down. The cat didn't even acknowledge my question.

Do any other animals enforce punishments on members of the groups that violate norms and standards of behavior? If you can answer that question, then you have the answer on non-human animal moral systems.