tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post8017600841180051484..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Evolution Accounts for Morality?Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58111210199498201012013-02-11T11:07:46.411-07:002013-02-11T11:07:46.411-07:00@blamer
I do not understand the relevance of much...<b>@blamer</b><br /><br />I do not understand the relevance of much of what you wrote here.<br /><br />Other than to say that when you "put your own spin on morality" then your arguments are at risk of becoming equivocations.<br /><br />It would be like discussing atheism by "putting my own spin on atheism" and defining it as the rejection of god because of some traumatic childhood experience.<br /><br />If you are not talking about what people ought or ought not to do, then you are not talking about morality. And no argument you provide demonstrates that a study of evolution can tell us what we ought or ought not to do.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68771956488245583912013-02-11T06:59:45.563-07:002013-02-11T06:59:45.563-07:00Related, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evo...Related, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality#Evolution@blamerhttp://twitter.com/blamernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-50284936848417346492013-02-11T06:52:27.020-07:002013-02-11T06:52:27.020-07:00AF, don't ye be discouraged! I've read you...AF, don't ye be discouraged! I've read your other posts and overall agree with your blog's framing of morality. Just like other commenters here, it's just this criticism in the OP that's uncharitable, because what you've criticised lacks nuance intentionally.<br /><br />1) We know "Evolution can't account for morality" is a (naively framed) myth, and one that we're hoping sites like atheismresource.com continue debunking head on! This must be done --and is-- by pointing out that "morality" evolved with our primate nature. And then it says --as do you-- that we then built "human societies".<br /><br />2) There's no suggestion anywhere here (far beyond the moralizing of religious right) that "morality" involves everybody agreeing on what's immoral. Though I suspect liberal discussions about morality --even here-- aren't yet far enough away from monotheism's upsetting framing of an ethical dilemma as a choice between group loyalty & sin.<br /><br />3) I vaguely detect that some consider "morality" to be a phenomenon to be described better (as with bonobos), whilst others consider it a uniquely human invention that we're all engaged in via language (text-based in this instance). Perhaps some clarity could be gained if we realised that the former is moralizing that we're no better than apes, and the latter is moralizing that we're even more confused by culture than they. I mention this only to point out that, without meaning to, we're unavoidably frustrating the hell outta folks by putting our own spin on morality, instead of insisting on wikipedia definitions as the evolution-advocates' pseaudo-doctrinal starting point when venturing into ethicists-speak ;)<br /><br />@blamerhttp://twitter.com/blamernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-74052717685481540052013-02-02T22:14:24.004-07:002013-02-02T22:14:24.004-07:00Similar to most books I own on Atheism this articl...Similar to most books I own on Atheism this article was a deep row to hoe for 65 year old high-school grads! I'm not sure I can attribute my morality to evolution any more than I can attribute my IQ to evolution although I would certainly agree that evolution gave me the ability to reason moral issues in the same way as I acquired through evolution the capacity for intelligence. Of course the ability to reason and the ability to learn may differ from human to human either by choice or by cause. Never-the-less, we at Table 54 enjoyed your discussion.<br /><br />-YLunch at Table 54http://table54.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-25040703594730130782013-02-01T20:26:19.685-07:002013-02-01T20:26:19.685-07:00@Joshua:
Thanks!
Let me clarify: I do not think...@Joshua:<br /><br />Thanks! <br /><br />Let me clarify: I do not think there is a disembodied "oughtness" to the universe. But there are various ways you can define "oughtness" that refer to real things in the universe, like the maximization of collective utility, the harmonizing of competing preferences and interests, the maximization of positive emotions (e.g. happiness, gratitude, aesthetic pleasure), the minimization of negative emotions (e.g. pain, depression, humiliation), the kinds of rules and institutions that optimally rational agents would agree to, etc. etc. If, by "oughtness," you are referring to any of these things, than our instincts are probably not a reliable guide to what we "ought" to do. If by "oughtness" you mean some mystical essence, then yes, I agree with you, that kind of "oughtness" does not exist. David Pinsofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07850730286000817916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-51807333720495929602013-02-01T20:14:29.690-07:002013-02-01T20:14:29.690-07:00@David: Right on! Except for this:
"To say, ...@David: Right on! Except for this:<br /><br />"To say, on the other hand, that our evolved instincts and intuitions can tell us what we "ought" to do in any given situation is almost certainly false."<br /><br />Only if you think there is some disembodied "ought-ness" to the universe. In reality, "ought" has no meaning outside of human judgments based on the cognitive algorithms that evolution gave us. It really does boil back down to biology, even from this second point of view.Joshua Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08556300019968902190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59774015673885189362013-02-01T19:58:47.192-07:002013-02-01T19:58:47.192-07:00It seems there are at least two ways in which the ...It seems there are at least two ways in which the term "morality" is used. One way defines morality in terms of the emotions and cognitive algorithms that evolution built into our nervous systems that underly culturally universal moral norms, practices, and behaviors -- e.g. the neural systems underlying guilt, sympathy, gratitude, anger, empathy, love, loyalty, reciprocity, fairness, disgust, "ingroup" and "outgroup," a concern for one's own and others' reputations, and the capacity to forgive transgressions and reconcile conflicts. These capacities and emotions undoubtedly have an evolutionary basis: their rational has been uncovered in game theoretical simulations of the evolution of cooperation, they emerge early in human development, their design features reflect their evolutionary functions, and they have been demonstrated in a wide variety of social species, especially in our closest primate relatives. To say that evolution accounts for morality, in this sense, is almost certainly true, and banal. To say, on the other hand, that our evolved instincts and intuitions can tell us what we "ought" to do in any given situation is almost certainly false. It seems to me that, if charitably interpreted, the author was referring to the evolutionary basis of morality in this first, descriptive sense, and not in the second, normative sense. Emphasizing how evolution can account for morality in the first sense is useful in order to counter mistaken beliefs about the evolutionary process, namely that it can only produce selfish, competitive, and cruel organisms, and that therefore only god can explain our altruistic tendencies. To be sure, cultural evolution plays an important role as well, but culture must necessarily interact with our biology in order to exert any change on human behavior. Therefore, a complete explanation of moral change must take into account both biology and culture (Steven Pinker does an excellent job of this in "The Better Angels of Our Nature). David Pinsofhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07850730286000817916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79842792506525344352013-02-01T19:28:47.194-07:002013-02-01T19:28:47.194-07:00Whoops! That final sentence should read, "It ...Whoops! That final sentence should read, "It seems you've a shallow understanding of the actual argument for an evolutionary basis of morality."Joshua Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08556300019968902190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-4218248315842119932013-02-01T19:23:50.879-07:002013-02-01T19:23:50.879-07:00"Furthermore, if morality is in our genes, wh..."Furthermore, if morality is in our genes, why do we need to reward reciprocity and punish excessive selfishness? Isn't it supposed to be the case that reciprocity and selflessness are accounted for by our genes?"<br /><br />No, of course not. If altruism is solely a product of genes, then an animal without the genes for altruism would benefit at the expense of altruistic animals. Thus, his genes would spread and altruism would decline in the gene pool. Populations that evolve the capacity to recognize and punish selfish behavior therefore have an evolutionary edge over those that don't.<br /><br />It seems you've a shallow understanding of what the evolutionary basis for morality actually is.Joshua Bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08556300019968902190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-90827330429281468052013-02-01T15:47:09.955-07:002013-02-01T15:47:09.955-07:00In my experience, many use the term "morality...In my experience, many use the term "morality" to mean the feelings of right and wrong, cultural norms concerning right and wrong, or the fact that cultures all create some sort of moral code. In this sense, evolution does account for morality.<br /><br />But I agree with the content of your post- that evolution does not account for things like "oughtness" or for what actually is worth condemning and praising, or what actions are worth promoting. In that sense, the desirism sense, evolution does not account for morality.<br /><br />I agree though, that in most ways, your use of the term morality makes more sense, and tracks better with how most people use the word.Nolanhttp://nolscuriosity.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-440330913475558112013-02-01T14:54:04.729-07:002013-02-01T14:54:04.729-07:00Certainly, evolution does not help us figure out w...Certainly, evolution does not help us figure out what to do ethically - we simply require an understanding of the desires, beliefs and agents in play. I would add here though, that an understanding of evolutionary psychology can be helpful in figuring out our desires, but if we did know our desires perfectly well, then it would not be required.<br /><br />However, I think the response contained in the post above is not the most charitable reading of the quoted passage. The quotation appeared to be responding to (something like) the following argument: "Evolution does not explain why we have such incredibly powerful moral emotions/why an objective morality exists, therefore God exists and science is wrong" or something else equally confused. Now, evolution does have a role in explaining why we feel such strong emotions, and why people think that morality 'is an objective part of the world' (or something). The argument is that 'a strong feeling of right or wrong, and corresponding actions of condemnation and praise, are evolutionarily advantageous, therefore they would be selected for naturally and thus the reasons why we believe in morality have been explained'. This is an adequate response to the former argument, and has nothing prescriptive to say, just descriptive (aka isn't evaluating reasons for action, is just describing things).<br /><br />So, don't feel sad about atheists making mistakes!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11004976604918477418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-52501849535403785592013-02-01T14:01:24.092-07:002013-02-01T14:01:24.092-07:00I agree entirely, though I would add that the cont...I agree entirely, though I would add that the content of morality is explained by cultural evolution. Morality is defined by your cultural identity, its exclusivity defined by how much cultural production is monopolised. In the case of the Holocaust, the Nazi's subjugated a generation to total, ideological culture, thereby shaping societies sense of morality sufficiently far enough for the final solution. It could happen to any society given such control over cultural (and therefore identity) evolution.Grimeandreasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12767103165109605622noreply@blogger.com