"Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary mechanisms?

Thomas,

Not wishing to quibble regarding your emphasis on "hypothesis" (or in my analysis "hyothesis direction") I would take issue on the "expertise of linguists" (or indeed the "expertise" of anybody !) regarding the operation of neurological structures. There is a plethora of potential models regarding such operations ranging from simple "logic circuits" through "finite state machines" to "quantum state shifts". The fact that "speech areas have been identified" and that such areas are "necessary" for language is neither here nor there in "explaining" how language or any other rule structured behaviour actually operates.

0 Replies

joefromchicago said

Quote:

Suppose a biologist argued that all moral rules have a biological basis. He then cites a specific moral rule -- let's say the rule that it is wrong to lie. No doubt the biologist can fashion any number of reasons to explain why it is biologically advantageous for humans not to lie. The danger, though, is to argue backwards and to use that explanation as support for the assumption that all moral rules have a biological basis. The conclusion can't provide support for the assumption on which the conclusion is based. That's bootstrapping.

Got it. Of course you've set the problem up in a particular way in having the biologist make an argument that moral rules have a biological basis. That's a specificity which isn't warranted.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

OK then blatham seems to have got it wrong:
blatham wrote:
Chomsky (and some others) have suggested that the moral capacity/propensity may be resident in us in much the same manner as language capabilities/propensities, that we are "hardwired" for it.

Sorry, I ought to have been more clear in what I originally said. I haven't read Hauser and the first time I bumped into this analogy between language capacity and moral capacity (for lack of better terms) was in a brief and in-passing mention of the notion that Chomsky gave in a lecture or interview that I read a year or so ago. I can't recall if he specifically attributed this to Hauser, but he made it clear that this wasn't his idea, merely one which he thought might prove a profitable line of investigation.

0 Replies

Doesn't 1984 set out to show that moral rules have nothing else but a biological basis and that it is 100% selfishness.

It may look different sat in an armchair or leaning on the bar but those are not typical human conditions taking the whole of human history as a guide.

Methinks Bernie that some self-indulgent and self flattering sophistry is in play. Philosophy works with extreme cases rather than petite bourgeoise time passing strategies.

The predatory animal IS a lie and I think it safe to say that humans are predatory.

What say you fresco?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Sorry, I ought to have been more clear in what I originally said. I haven't read Hauser and the first time I bumped into this analogy between language capacity and moral capacity (for lack of better terms) was in a brief and in-passing mention of the notion that Chomsky gave in a lecture or interview that I read a year or so ago. I can't recall if he specifically attributed this to Hauser, but he made it clear that this wasn't his idea, merely one which he thought might prove a profitable line of investigation.

I can agree that this would be a "profitable line of investigation." My negative reaction earlier was the result of having heard extravagant claims from sociobiologists in the 1970's.

0 Replies

Spendius,

I think all "problems" regarding the "basis" of morality stem from the two directions from which the topic is approached. The "reductionists" (including traditional biologists and evolutionists) go for a bottom up explanation in which "society" is no more than the sum of its components. The "systems theorists" (and this includes some biologists) go for a top down approach in which "society" is more than the mere sum of its parts, such that these in turn cannot be behaviourally described without reference to their functional status within society. The question of "biological basis" therefore depends on which sort of "biologist" you are.

0 Replies

Bottom up sounds okay to me. But Top Down is a close second.

At the moment anyway.

Can you not combine them.

But the question was did Orwell settle it? And didn't the vast bulk of our evolution operate on the principle that biology determined morality and was thus the same thing and what morality we have now is down to religion because nobody, least of all Americans, are going to take their morality from a human source and nothing much changes in 20,000 years in biological terms and thus those who reject religion are seeking to return us to the original state albeit gradually as the Christian morality fades under their onslaught and its remnants disguise the drift towards the morality of the "stick rattling in the bucket".

Back to square one only with science added.

0 Replies

Spendius,

No, I don't think Orwell settled it irrespective of the success of Pavlovian conditioning techniques to "break" dissidents. History shows that such anthropomorphic "big brother" distopias seem to fail because they fail to adapt. We are lulled into applauding Orwell because of his focus on "control" which is the essence of "explanation" but "adaptive systems" cannot be modelled on such simplistic mechanisms.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Does anyone care to give what can be considered a plausible definition of "moral behavior" in this context?
That which tends to increase the potential for mankind's thrive-ability such as:

1) autonomous extraterrestrial colonies
2) small ecologically-unobtrusive earth-based human population
3) planetary meteor protection

First, this is not an appropriate response because i asked for a definition of "moral behavior" in this context, and this context is the behavior of animals, not the behavior of humans. In the second place, you have made assertions about what would cause the human race to thrive, but have provided not even an argument, let alone any evidence, which would equate such activities with "moral behavior."

The reason i find this thread more than a little implausible is that the term "moral behavior" is being applied to the behavior of animal species other than humans, but no one has offered even an argument for why such behavior can be considered to be "moral." Absolutely no evidence has been presented that the behaviors referred to are "moral," and absent a plausible working definition of what constitutes "moral behavior" in animals, there is not going to be any reasonable argument advanced that animals are acting in a "moral" manner--because one can simply assert that they have, without any burden of proof.

For example, at the outset two examples are given--one in which a primate refuses to eat, because the primate is aware that eating will cause pain to a fellow, and a second example is given in which a primate loses his (her?) life attempting to save the life of another primate. Such behavior may be alleged to be many things, but i see no good reason to assert that such behavior is "moral." Basically, a lot of value judgments are being slung around here, without support and without being questioned.

I'd have thought that at least Fresco would have seen the linguistic implications of ascribing "morality" to the behavior of non-human animals.

0 Replies

Those implications are so trite as to be unworthy of attention.

fresco-

I was referring to Winston Smith's jettisoning of his last moral scruple in the face of pressure. The implication being that moral scruples are luxuries for the comfortably placed to weave the winds with.

I don't applaud Orwell. I would have banned 1984.

Whether or not the type of society he described in 1984 might "fail" does not alter the personal choice WS eventually made. And morals are a personal matter.

Orwell was challenging his readers to imagine the choice they would have made in those circumstances.

0 Replies

Setanta,

The only implications I assume you are thinking about are those concerning the supposed "uniqueness" of human language. This would indeed make arguments by analogy between "linguistics" and "morality" invalid. However, if we take "social relationships" as the axiomatic background rather than "linguistic communications" it allows us to consider the acquisition of "social rule structures" in general terms for all "social species". My argument is analogous to saying that two systems have a mathematical models in common. (Circular motion in the case of the solar system and subatomic particles cited above)

Your objection therefore boils down to doubting that concepts like "altruism" or "empathy" have non-species specific "formal structures" and whether such structures have explanatory adequacy in terms of the "logic" of evolution.

0 Replies

No, my objection boils down to assigning a human intellectual construct which is called "morality" to animal actions which are defined in human terms reasonably as "altruism," or "empathy." Even solely in human terms, concepts such as "altruism" and "empathy" don't constitute "morality," although there may be a moral value judgment placed on them.

My objection is that we apply the human concept of "morality" to actions by animals which, whether or not they can be demonstrated to have evolutionary value to the respective species, cannot reasonably be attributed to a universal and absolute standard.

0 Replies

Spendius,

Since I am no believer in the "coherent self" I find Winston Smith "dilemma" a bit of a straw man. Whereas it is the case that religious martyrs seem to pin their "self integrity" on strong concepts of "eternal truth and salvation", I believe most of us would take a pragmatic stance under extreme pressure. Tales of murder and canabalism come to mind here associated with Russian famines.

0 Replies

The Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy defines morality as follows:

The term "morality" can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
1. some other group, such as a religion, or
2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take "morality" to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use "morality" normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that "morality" in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism. Thus, although, not widely discussed, the definition of morality has great significance for moral theory.

So, why should one assume that "all rational persons" consider that the acts of altruism and empathy detailed at the beginning of the thread constitute "moral behavior?"

0 Replies

Setanta,

I understand your objection but I think it misses an aspect of that other "biological" approach I have referred to as "systems behaviour". Within such an approach, for example, the term "cognition" has no special significance and by implication nor would "human intellectual concepts" such as "morality". Indeed the use of "words" is deemed to signify the "coordination of cordination" or merely a "higher level of complexity" of the "general life process".

0 Replies

fresco-

I don't know what you mean by "coherent self" . I take it to mean feral.
Is that correct.

I don't see a straw man. The fact is that Orwell posed the question. He had worked for the Government during the war. And been in the Burmese Police. And to Eton. And being such an ugly sod couldn't have sweetened his disposition much.

And you have failed to address the point of the difficulty of a morality derived from a human agency. The atheist seems to me to take a position dependent upon the majority not being atheists. If he persuaded everyone to be atheists he would be in a different world which he might not like. Thus he might consider seeking faith as some do or ceasing to preach atheism as some also do.

What is his purpose in preaching atheism? on the incoherent self principle. I'm not sure he can look to any gains for society even though he might claim to.

I've seen atheist Government ministers attending religious services in a dignified and tolerant manner.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Setanta,

I understand your objection but I think it misses an aspect of that other "biological" approach I have referred to as "systems behaviour". Within such an approach, for example, the term "cognition" has no special significance and by implication nor would "human intellectual concepts" such as "morality". Indeed the use of "words" is deemed to signify the "coordination of cordination" or merely a "higher level of complexity" of the "general life process".

In which case, i see no good reason to ascribe the rise of "morality" from animal behavior which responds to an evolutionary imperative. In a sense, the "sociobiologists" (god, that cracks me up) beg the question, because they assume that the behaviors alluded to, already labeled as "altruism" and "empathy" represent moral behavior, in the absence of a reliable definition of what constitutes "morality." Before claiming that these behaviors are evidence of a biological origin of morality, it were necessary to establish what "morality" were, and how such behaviors could be shown to be "moral" in character.

0 Replies

Sociobiology always struck me as a misguided attempt to link physical sciences with social sciences. It is possible to produce findings showing a link between genes and behavior but these findings are completely overwhelmed by the role that culture plays.

0 Replies

By that argument do you think culture alone could truly inhibit heterosexual pair bonding and even more to the point the heterosexual sex act itself?

0 Replies

Spendius,

On self integrity.

I (caution with that word) tend to take the view that the "normal self" is a committee of argumentative impulses. In fact most of the time it may not "exist" at all but is "evoked" as a potential actor when decisions are to be taken. This comunication for example is constructing a "self" for the purpose of a making a response in a particular context. The "committee" is offering opinions like "believers tend to respond with their relationship with their god on the line". Another opinion is that "believers think they have a unitary self which survives death". According to this, atheism is not "preached" it is a plea to "wake up". (This view is in the Gurdjieff tradition of "ordinary man being asleep")

Setanta,

All participants in the morality debate are jockeying to establish a semantic paradigm. Attempts to establish "definitions" are ultimately undermined by Godels incompleteness theorem which leaves some statements as assumed axioms. An example of your own might be that "morality cannot apply to (non-human) animals". Wittgenstein might agree with you on his basis that "meaning is use", and concur that much of the foregoing discussion about "biology" is what happens when "language goes on holiday". On the other hand those who wish to move "science" away from anthropocentricity seek to establish their own paradigm of "evolutionary continuity" in which "cognition" is deflated. Their opposition tend to claim this is insulting to "the dignity of man" or "its like turkeys voting for Christmas", but this iis countered by pointing to the bloodsoaked history of mankind's impact on all species despite its so-called "morality".

The jury remains out Smile

.

0 Replies

"Moral truths"...arising out of evolutionary mechanisms?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know