tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6567366716730192888..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Evolution's Ethics Part II: Gene Command TheoryAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-51231213006570701252009-11-03T09:51:46.152-07:002009-11-03T09:51:46.152-07:00Sounds interesting (and wrong).
BenSounds interesting (and wrong). <br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-91907717548350739252009-11-03T08:17:05.954-07:002009-11-03T08:17:05.954-07:00Oh, and there IS morality among animals. It's ...Oh, and there IS morality among animals. It's just not where the evolutionary ethicist is looking. Their mistaken assumptions cause them to see morality where none exists, and causes them to fail to see morality where it does exist.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-81057843125200834252009-11-03T08:10:57.741-07:002009-11-03T08:10:57.741-07:00WAR_ON_ERROR
Nope. I do not believe in libertaria...<b>WAR_ON_ERROR</b><br /><br />Nope. I do not believe in libertarian free will. That, also, makes no sense.<br /><br />In fact, desirism requires determinism. If some sort of libertarian free will exists, desirism could not handle it.<br /><br /><b>It also sounds like you are rejecting a lot of evidence that could be brought up from the animal kingdom that is analogous to what we would ordinarily label moral behavior (like altruism in monkeys) in order to maintain this denial.</b><br /><br />I am not going to question the evidence. I am going to question the conclusion, however. The inference from evidence to conclusion is invalid.<br /><br />It's a lot like the case of a person who 'feels God's presence'. The person who 'feels the wrongness' of a particular act is making the same mistake. The evidence is there - but it does not support the conclusion the speaker wishes to impose upon it.<br /><br />Anyway, I have an "Apollo +50" post I need to write for tomorrow. then I'll explain why evidence of evolved altruism or empathy is no evidence of evolved morality.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50612810927497179442009-11-03T06:11:08.479-07:002009-11-03T06:11:08.479-07:00Actually, I hold that "a genetic disposition ...<b>Actually, I hold that "a genetic disposition towards moral behavior" makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />It implies that we are to be morally praiseworthy or blameworthy based on the sequence of our DNA - something over which (as far as I can tell) most of us have absolutely no control.</b><br /><br />This is precisely the error I was talking about above. Our genes <i>cause</i> us to behave morally (sometimes). But that is quite different from saying it is moral to favour our genes or that our genes control what we do. Our genes also gives us disposition to eat sweet things (presumably because once upon a time high calorie foods were good for our biological fitness and sweet things are usually high calorie). However, that disposition does not favour our genes in the current environment and we can elect not to eat sweet things.Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61044938294540675012009-11-03T05:55:21.796-07:002009-11-03T05:55:21.796-07:00Alonzo,
"Actually, I hold that "a genet...Alonzo,<br /><br /><i>"Actually, I hold that "a genetic disposition towards moral behavior" makes no sense whatsoever."</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.craig-thear.com/images/disappointed.jpg" rel="nofollow">image</a><br /><br />So...you believe in libertarian free will then? Probably not, but it seems like the irrational psychological reasons why libertarians reject determinism hold true for why you reject even a weak form of "gene command theory." <br /><br />I'll look forward to your post (no rush), but it would be helpful if you would address why it is that we have to be able to control *every* aspect of what makes us moral agents in order to be praiseworthy. Of course, we don't even control our control, or our desires to make ourselves any other way, so it seems that nothing we do should be praiseworthy if we accept your standards. <br /><br />It also sounds like you are rejecting a lot of evidence that could be brought up from the animal kingdom that is analogous to what we would ordinarily label moral behavior (like altruism in monkeys) in order to maintain this denial. Not cool. Not consistent. And not necessary. I don't think animals are following some high brow moral theory they thought up. They aren't blank behavioral slates any more than we are. <br /><br />May the best abductive argument win though. Good luck.<br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40501521737301296042009-11-03T05:31:57.796-07:002009-11-03T05:31:57.796-07:00WAR_ON_ERROR
All I'm looking for is some sens...<b>WAR_ON_ERROR</b><br /><br /><i>All I'm looking for is some sensibility here on your part since *complete* denial of a genetic disposition towards moral behavior makes no sense whatsoever.</i><br /><br />Actually, I hold that "a genetic disposition towards moral behavior" makes no sense whatsoever.<br /><br />It implies that we are to be morally praiseworthy or blameworthy based on the sequence of our DNA - something over which (as far as I can tell) most of us have absolutely no control.<br /><br />I'll develop this argument further a couple of posts down the road.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-78120959122251106722009-11-03T03:26:04.285-07:002009-11-03T03:26:04.285-07:00Alonzo,
PZ Myers isn't a philosopher, but he ...Alonzo,<br /><br />PZ Myers isn't a philosopher, but he knows good and well that evolution is responsible for putting us in the ballpark of moral behavior. As I said in the comments on your previous post, our species wouldn't generate moral philosophers such as yourself if that wasn't true. You are always going to throw folks like Christof here for a loop as long as you are ultra rigid on your talking points here. <br /><br />I'm assuming any rhetoric in the direction of "gene command theory" (which is very clever, btw) sets off your polemical sirens and perhaps nine times out of ten people really are trying to codify uncritically however they feel about a moral issue without giving it more thought. All I'm looking for is some sensibility here on your part since *complete* denial of a genetic disposition towards moral behavior makes no sense whatsoever. Evolutionary selective pressures have had their amoral unintentional hands all over the framework of your moral facts for a lot longer than you've been thinking about it. And you're pretending like there's just no connection there like morality drops out of memetic heaven. It's truly baffling. It's like you are trying to keep n00bs from making n00b mistakes but then you over do it to protect us from being lazy with our moral discernment. Why can't we recognize evolution's contribution and then not be lazy with our moral discernment? Too obvious? *sigh* <br /><br />The PZ Myers of the world do say some embarrassing things, but your dissensibility here is equally embarrassing to our movement, imo. <br /><br />BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479224236264150172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-19835340548088283022009-11-02T23:33:22.613-07:002009-11-02T23:33:22.613-07:00Evolution cannot be the justification of moral sen...Evolution cannot be the justification of moral sentiments it can be (and I believe is) the cause of moral sentiments. This is not subject to Euthyphro. I think people still confuse the two. I suppose someone could argue that God was the cause but not the justification of our moral sentiments - which would be a kind of intelligent design of morality.Mark Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07117994136165938870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-71911009784573936702009-11-02T10:35:19.125-07:002009-11-02T10:35:19.125-07:00Christof
I find the use of the term "Empathy...Christof<br /><br />I find the use of the term "Empathy" loading the dice somewhat.<br /><br />Certainly there are neurological grounds for this in mirror neurons. However having the capacity to put oneself in another's shoes does not indicate whether having this ability can be used to help or hinder others (such as in the improved ability to deceive). Or I could say why mention empathy without antipathy. The argument looks question begging.<br /><br />Further most would regard someone as more moral if they stand up for someone they have no empathy for (a slight Kantian bent in this thought but true nonetheless). It is far easier to be empathetic to one's own kind than to others and how much this lack of empathy contributed to out-group hostility and worse?<br /><br />SO I remain unconvinced by empathy based evolutionary arguments (in addition to the particular desirist ones) as all I see that only by selective bias - in choosing certain cognitive or connative features and ignoring the equivalent but adverse others - can one even make an argument to this effect.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-44269910610278170442009-11-02T09:24:14.434-07:002009-11-02T09:24:14.434-07:00@faithlessgod well take "empathy" for ex...@faithlessgod well take "empathy" for example. empathy is good (it fulfills more desires that it thwarts).<br /><br />Now, there seems to be some evidence (read Frans de Waal) that our capacity for empathy has come about be natural selection. That's what I meant by "evolution has equipped us with some basic moral sentiments".<br /><br />But maybe Alonzo and I are not really in disagreement. Maybe what Alonzo is saying is that empathy is not good just because it's in our genes. If empathy is good, it's because it fulfills more desires that it thwarts. <br /><br />Whatever desires evolution has equipped us with, we must test them against desirism before concluding they are "good".Christof Janshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18148476603239966579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6880604217882908612009-11-02T08:45:44.184-07:002009-11-02T08:45:44.184-07:00Alonzo
Excellent
Christof
Please explain how &q...Alonzo<br /><br />Excellent<br /><br />Christof<br /><br />Please explain how "evolution has equipped us with some basic moral sentiments".Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-11989383076022301642009-11-02T07:46:54.880-07:002009-11-02T07:46:54.880-07:00"there is no evolved moral sense".
This ..."there is no evolved moral sense".<br />This doesn't sit right with me. I think it should rather be this: "yes evolution has equipped us with some basic moral sentiments, but - like most products of evolution - they are often haphazard and quirky. So we should not just accept our evolved moral sentiments; instead, we should find a reasonable and defensible moral theory (aka desirism) and judge our inborn sentiments against that theory.Christof Janshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18148476603239966579noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29011338175044179012009-11-02T07:41:24.928-07:002009-11-02T07:41:24.928-07:00Very thorough and thought-provoking. Thanks for th...Very thorough and thought-provoking. Thanks for the post.My Thoughtshttp://alessamendes.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com