tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8623219225433495639..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Genetic Morality DelusionAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-60054247367261589252007-05-08T19:16:00.000-06:002007-05-08T19:16:00.000-06:00Eneasz, actually, I was sort of supplementing what...Eneasz, actually, I was sort of supplementing what Alonzo said, or that was my intention, at least. You mustn't mind my stringent manner, I get like that sometimes. <BR/><BR/>In order to associate a traits of "behavior" with the actual physical objects, genes, it would be necessary to know that there was a trait as a discreet phenomenon (I haven't gotten into the matter of the necessary boundaries and definitions of this propose "trait", which, though extrememly difficult to achieve, would, nonetheless, be entirely necessary) and not just an amalgum of phenomena lumped together by a process akin to folklore. Then there would be the problem of identifying genes allegedly carrying the "trait". <BR/><BR/>I think I might have said here once that the fact that these people want to research so close to the edge of what could be hoped to be known wasn't my fault, but the difficulty they've chosen for themselves should be a motive for questioning, not a reason to have pity on them. I don't and I won't.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18062871551532977582007-05-08T18:20:00.000-06:002007-05-08T18:20:00.000-06:00max frankI believe that your assessment is exactly...<B>max frank</B><BR/><BR/>I believe that your assessment is exactly right.<BR/><BR/>In other context, I have given this same answer in the context of desire utilitarianism. An aversion to killing is a desire that we can fulfill in virtually all circumstances. However, an aversion to people dying is unfulfillable, since (so far) by necessity everybody will die. So, we have more and stronger reason to promote an aversion to killing than an aversion to people dying.<BR/><BR/>Good job.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-41698441693052972332007-05-08T17:24:00.000-06:002007-05-08T17:24:00.000-06:00The primary flaw with Blummer's original argument ...The primary flaw with Blummer's original argument involving the people awaiting organ donation and the oncoming train is that the situation with the train requires that someone is killed. Obviously, most people would choose for one person to be killed, rather than 5. On the contrary, the hospital scenario ignores the fact that people die every day, and can provide organs to those in need. It is not required that any of the people in that scenario die. It is these minor flaws in arguments that often ruin an entire sociological thesis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70060479677121991852007-05-08T16:05:00.000-06:002007-05-08T16:05:00.000-06:00olvlzl, ok, I understand what you're saying. I ju...olvlzl, ok, I understand what you're saying. I just don't see how anyone here has made any such claim. Unless I'm mistaken, no one has said anything that implies "these concepts are an actual THING you can point to". That would be a ridiculous statement. Seems to be a bit of a strawman to accuse someone of claiming something like this and then demolishing it. And a bit of a non-sequitor to do so in the comments section of a post that didn't touch on anything like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-27667948921807837142007-05-08T13:27:00.000-06:002007-05-08T13:27:00.000-06:00eneasz, the easiest way to make the point about co...eneasz, the easiest way to make the point about conflation and reification is that just because we come up with a word for something doesn't mean that it has an existence as one thing. When the phenomena is something relatively intangible, "religious belief", for example, we use one word for what are clearly different behaviors and presmably mental processes. The range of those is undetermined. To take that and suggest a "genetic basis" for it, is a mighty big leap. To take a word or words and to suddenly make them flesh, as it were, is rather putting the rocket before the horse. You will notice that the act of giving something like that a name also runs to risk of "identifying" something that might not be something that has a truely discreet existence. You can talk about "patriotism" but does that mean that there is really a "thing" there? The problem becomes particularly acute when biological determinists start talking about these things as if they have a physical cause that will, somehow, someday be found in a single or, more likely, a set of genes. In the meantime they have the unfortunate tendency to create myths to "explain" how they "evolved", all without any fossil record or other physical basis.<BR/><BR/>I've got to run or I'd say more. Just say that even if I hadn't brought up the "cause", others certainly have. For the sake of the argument, I'll borrow theirs without being able to define what it might be.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-65724699163369268762007-05-08T11:13:00.000-06:002007-05-08T11:13:00.000-06:00The idea that we are wired so as to jump to moral ...The idea that we are wired so as to jump to moral conclusions that are possibly incorrect (just as we are wired to perceive certain optical illusions or to, as you say, get a fear reaction from something that is not dangerous) is substantially consistent with my claim that morality is independent of our (genetic) reactions.<BR/><BR/>The idea that we can be wrong requires that there is a right answer - an answer that is independent of our reactions (and independent of our genes).<BR/><BR/>Genetic moralist tend not to say that we are hard-wired for moral reactions that are possibly incorrect. They claim that our morality <I>is identical to</I> those reactions, which prohibits the possibility of error.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82227380097563120872007-05-08T11:02:00.000-06:002007-05-08T11:02:00.000-06:00olvlzl - I find I agree with many of your posts wh...olvlzl - I find I agree with many of your posts which center on practical matters, such as campaigning and drug-law reform. But many of abstract opinions boggle me. For example - it seems that you are saying that just because there is confusion about what is moral, and the term morality encompases quite a bit, that means that there's no such thing as morality? Are you honestly saying that there is no right and wrong? Or that, since there are so many religions out there, that therefore religious belief doesn't exist? Am I misunderstanding you?<BR/><BR/>Also, in an unrelated (I believe) comment you said -<BR/>< Science can only go to the edge of what can be observed and analyzed in the physical universe. It can't go any farther. A possible cause outside of that universe could exist but it couldn't be "known".><BR/><BR/>You posit something beyond the universe. You claim that it's non-physical, and can't be known. First - what is the point of even contemplating something which is non-physical and can't in any way be known? If it can't be known, it can't have any effect on the universe we actually know exists. If it DOES have some effect, then it CAN be known, at least in part.<BR/>Second - by even stating that such a universe exists, you are saying at least one thing about it, and therefore it seems at least somethings about it can be known.<BR/><BR/>Atheist Observer - I believe that is exactly what Alonzo is saying. That just because some genes can cause you have have a predisposition to something (such as killing an out-group and taking thier stuff) does not make it right. And therefore a theory of morality that says "That which our genes makes us feel is right/wribg is what defines what is right/wrong" is terribly flawed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-90617926960960826272007-05-08T09:18:00.000-06:002007-05-08T09:18:00.000-06:00I read the article you referred to and failed to s...I read the article you referred to and failed to see what you seem concerned about. I think you are confusing is and ought. In this case the is of feelings about right and wrong, and the ought of what is morally correct.<BR/>Let’s take a different example. We have a genetic tendency to be frightened by big, noisy things. Our genetic wiring tells us these things are likely to be dangerous. Children cry and are frightened by these things. That has nothing to do with whether or not a particular big noisy thing presents a real danger. Sensing danger does not mean danger exists.<BR/>We feel danger, we react fearfully in an unthinking way to certain stimuli. This has had strong survival value. But it doesn’t mean this proves these things are dangerous or that we can’t learn to react differently in time.<BR/>The same is true of morality. There is strong evidence we are wired to react to certain things or situations as right or wrong. That doesn’t mean those feelings are necessarily correct or appropriate in a given instance. Nor does it mean we can’t come to a different intellectual evaluation or learn to change our feelings over time. But to deny we have evolved these feelings because they don’t fit into an ideal moral theory is to confuse the is of who we are with the ought of who we might want to be.<BR/>Whether I have some instincts that lead me to have an unthinking feeling that something is right is a completely unrelated question to whether I can use desire utilitarianism or another theory to come to a reasoned evaluation of the moral correctness of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11546328683642546352007-05-08T04:38:00.000-06:002007-05-08T04:38:00.000-06:00I don't know if it's been pointed out here but the...I don't know if it's been pointed out here but the idea that "morality" or "religious belief" , so far not backed up with any real science, I point out in passing, is somehow "found in the genes" could lead to places you might not suspect. It should first be pointed out that what is commonly meant when these words and phrases are used can't be identified as discreet entities. What is meant by just the two above can be easily analyzed as composites of different phenomena, some of strikingly different appearance. In the talk about "religion" and what that means the enormously varied official teachings of different "religions" alone would, if honestly talked about, lead to the conclusion that there really isn't any such thing as "religious belief". And the term "morality", encompassing many of the aspects of "religious belief" and multiplying those through individual beliefs and, most important of all acts, soon shows that there really is no discreet "thing" that is called out of convenience "morality". Finding a genetic or physical basis for that would require a distortion or selection from the entire universe mentioned above in order for genetic loci "causing" the behaviors and ideas to be found.<BR/><BR/>I put "causing" in quotes because, of course, that is ultimately a philosophical question and not a scientific one. Science can only go to the edge of what can be observed and analyzed in the physical universe. It can't go any farther. A possible cause outside of that universe could exist but it couldn't be "known". <BR/><BR/>More practically for non-believers and, I'm sorry to have to point it out, religious fundamentalists and Calvinists, finding "religion genes" would lead them to the conclusion that a God who wished to be known by human kind existed and he wrote the proof of his existence in our very genes. A recessive or latent expression would fit quite nicely into the doctrine of predestination, I'm afraid. <BR/><BR/>Alonzo, your analysis would be a lot more secure than this kind of reified and conflated "science". Your instincts are better than the reductionists, you should go with yours.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-90045170078034714902007-05-07T22:54:00.000-06:002007-05-07T22:54:00.000-06:00Say there were five people needing transplants and...Say there were five people needing transplants and one healthy pig walks into the hospital. Would they strip that pig of parts?<BR/>Say there are five Iranians needing transplants and one healthy American walks into the hospital?<BR/>Say there were five homosexuals and one male child walks into the church?<BR/><BR/>Depletion of life is a peculiar thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com