Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 11:16am PT
|
Instead of dwelling all the time on how mighty challenging our non-absolute morality is, why not at least once in awhile note how successful our body of laws are, eg, and have become, in bringing understanding, order and even civility to it.
Our body of laws are a great testament and reflection of our morality, our composite morality of innate and social components, our composite morality across individuals and groups too, and also our effort to make sense of it and systemize it.
As an evolution of a very long sorting out process, esp in light of the fact that we were NOT given any "aid" by a know-it-all Overseer as traditions of old-world belief systems would have us believe, it is a pretty amazing thing.
Just think about it, 330M-plus primates (barely smarter than chimps and just as evolved) just on this one continent all getting along, not killing each other (<10/100k !!), working in creative collaboration everywhere, one result of which is an advancing civilization onward and upward by many standards. How cool is that? Hear, hear for human morality, how it works and its potential!
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 11:21am PT
|
It's not hard to get outside your box, Paul :D
Picture a small band of Homos in Africa during a drought. Eating Grandma and thus saving the rest of the group may well be the moral thing to do under the circumstances. Abhorrent by today's morality - but then, we don't have to survive in that environment. Our evolutionary pressures are not the same.
Genocide is another thing entirely, of course. Not really relevant to this discussion - by hey, it really tugs the ole' emotional strings for the innernut win.
Everything we are evolved. To separate any aspect of being human from evolution is to deny evolution exists.
Some here seem to confuse the concept of innate, evolved morality with sameness of shared morality. While the basic morality of, say, fairness, exists as an innate trait in probably all humans (psychopaths excepted, perhaps), it's instantiation varies quite a bit - by individual, by community, by environment.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 11:41am PT
|
How would our morality change if Homo sapiens faced the kind of environmental pressure our ancestors did around 70,000 years ago, when we were reduced to a few thousand individuals?
How would be re-balance evolution's masala of cooperation/competition/exploitation?
What would our societies look like after a super volcano, asteroid impact, global pandemic, or nuclear war?
Pretty different, I'd say.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 11:49am PT
|
It's not hard to get outside your box, Paul :D
Picture a small band of Homos in Africa during a drought. Eating Grandma and thus saving the rest of the group may well be the moral thing to do under the circumstances. Abhorrent by today's morality - but then, we don't have to survive in that environment. Our evolutionary pressures are not the same.
It is fascinating and just too funny that your enthusiasm for science puts you in the position of having to advocate for cannibalism.
Compare morality to the development of language. Language/verbal and gestural communication (grunts and pointing) could be described as inherent in the species. But certainly english with its vast vocabulary and structure, its remarkable ability to communicate subtlety, was developed, like morality, over the course of centuries of human interaction, analysis and understanding. Morality developed to the point that it often is at odds with the evolutionary paradigm of survival.
Yes, I would agree there is a base inherent element to morality, but the subtleties that inform what we understand as morality today are the product of the centuries long human attempt to make sense or our lives, to live a proper life, one in which potential and even nobility are realized.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 11:56am PT
|
"...are the product of the human attempt to make sense or our lives, to live a proper life, one in which potential and even nobility are realized."
and the counter currents of scientific knowledge, which place humans farther and farther from any universal specialness...
we are not the center of the universe, we are not the "crown of creation", our sun is one of "billions and billions" in our galaxy, which is one in a cluster, in a cluster of clusters, in a universe where the matter of all of us and the stars is a small "contaminant" and that universe might be one of an ensemble of universes....
no wonder science is scorned, it tells us an important truth we don't want to know, we aren't special to the universe (whatever that is), we have to find that specialness within ourselves in the short time we are afforded the chance.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 12:40pm PT
|
Ed, I like the way you have been pointing out in your past few posts that science is both reductive and constructive. It is a good antidote I think for some of the past overly reductionists views and critiques of those views put forth on this thead.
I would also like to add that all of your philosophical questions about human life have been addressed somewhere in Buddhism which has always maintained that our world was only one of many and our life forms only one of many. Along with Hinduism, it has always taught a form of evolution of life as well.
As for morality, Budhhism, like most eastern religions, believes there is an innate morality and that our basic nature is good. Buddhists of any sophistication, even village illiterates, will tell you that morality is an individual and an evolving principle and one which can never have exact answers but evolves as our age and consciousness evolves.
In general they respect life, and knowing we all share the same DNA only adds to that. Sincere Buddhists go to great lengths to accommodate and facilitate other life forms, but in the end, there are always contradictions. We spare the lives of insects and mice, and we boil the water and kill millions. Mostly when I questioned this, they would answer that it is our intent that matters and that we continue to refine our intent through out our lifetimes.
Do I think most western people will become Buddhist? Probably not, but I do think a new form of philosophy could be developed in the west along these lines in the name of naturalism.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 12:48pm PT
|
I strongly advocate for cannibalism. Every time a see a baby, I salivate. I categorize them into 'pan fry', 'Hibachi' and 'Weber'.
I've got an inhuman zeal for human veal.
It will be interesting if and when Homo sapiens meets another apex predator species with groovier toys. We might find that morality is, indeed, quite a variable thing.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 02:56pm PT
|
we are not the center of the universe, we are not the "crown of creation", our sun is one of "billions and billions" in our galaxy, which is one in a cluster, in a cluster of clusters, in a universe where the matter of all of us and the stars is a small "contaminant" and that universe might be one of an ensemble of universes....
no wonder science is scorned
I wonder what difference it makes as to our irrelevance based on quantity.
There are remarkable numbers of stars and planets and potentials and we are clearly not the center of all existence but so what?
We have the fortune of a remarkable consciousness and resulting intelligence through which we can realize a conceivable phronesis and the resulting eudemonia. Neither of which can survive if conceived as perfectly relative.
Nobody is scorning science except those at the limits of reason. However, scientism, which I would describe as the misapplication of scientific method to those things outside its (science’s) realm, is problematic.
There is a kind of nobility in human existence. To be confronted by an inevitable annihilation and all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that are as equally inevitable, to face those and make something decent out of it, to be ultimately an infinitesimal bit in an inconceivable space, how easy to become brutish and mean all in the name of evolutionary victory.
Our smallness in the face of the universe is all the more reason to pat ourselves on the back for our victory over circumstance.
…and then others would rather wait for space invaders I suppose. Best of luck.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 03:13pm PT
|
. . . which we can realize a conceivable phronesis and the resulting eudemonia
Practical wisdom and happiness. I had to look them up.
;>\
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 03:32pm PT
|
Scientism is problematic - but not a problem, as almost no one actually subscribes to it. Mainly, it's a strawman for those who see themselves as having a monopoly on wonder and aesthetic sensibility. In their 'celebration of humanity' - they dehumanize their perceived opponents with a projected belief system.
Wait for space invaders rather than...what, exactly?
Yeah. My point exactly.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 04:10pm PT
|
There is a kind of nobility in human existence.
Can we get a second opinion? From a second species?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 04:54pm PT
|
Ask Werner.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 05:25pm PT
|
However, scientism, which I would describe as the misapplication of scientific method to those things outside its (science’s) realm, is problematic.
what is outside its "realm"?
it's odd, and "scientism" is an odd concept, can you define it?
"Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."
no one is excluding other viewpoints in this discussion, as far as I can see... and whether or not "empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview" is itself empirical... to take a trite example, we can have a worldview in which the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe, what does science inform us about that?
Or perhaps that humans are an exceptional life form? what does science have to say about that?
What's "authoritative"?
Do you have some philosophical proof that the scientific method isn't applicable somewhere? that would be interesting...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 06:29pm PT
|
Science and elements of philosophy are the only possible 'authoritative' sources of information about the world around us. We have countless other ways and means of attempting to understand ourselves, each other, and our perceived relationships to the universe.
Much of latter is profound to contemplate, beyond beautiful, amazingly insightful, and remarkably interesting, but in what way are they authoritative?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 07:49pm PT
|
The misapplication of science would probably seem more problematic to me if I defined its correct application in a different way.
I think that a challenge of our advantageous belief systems is that we have to believe that our beliefs are true in order for them to be advantageous. Fortunately (or choose a negative word you misanthrope!) we seem quite well adapted to self confirmation bias. Humans believing that our nature is good is the healthy way for a human to believe, and it's good to be healthy. Repeat until death.
My daughter's medication has a warning label that says it can produce psychoses including holding beliefs that aren't true, as if that's not part of the correct functioning of a human! We're only as good as our information, including the evolutionary information that we're trained on.
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 07:52pm PT
|
Of possible application on this thread:
"Matt Dillahunty gives the example of a large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof. It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of belief/disbelief a person could hold is more nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as
1.The number of gumballs is even.
2.The number of gumballs is odd.
These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both. This is the default position. The justification for this zero-evidence epistemic position of non-belief is only over the lack of evidence supporting the claim. Instead, the burden of proof, or the responsibility to provide evidence and reasoning for one claim or the other, lies with those seeking to persuade someone holding the default position." (Wikipedia)
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2015 - 08:23pm PT
|
no wonder science is scorned, it tells us an important truth we don't want to know, we aren't special to the universe (whatever that is), we have to find that specialness within ourselves in the short time we are afforded the chance.
Ed
man, i jus can't figure out your reason, or your emotional stock for this statement? maybe ur reverting to satire?
i for one am Stoked for the truth science brings forth. mostly cause i believe all truth leads to God. The bible says,"the eye is the window for the soul.. So i got a boner to know how that works. And science is helping.
That would be one reason i believe 'We'(every creature with eyeballs) are Special!
If the universe even through a determined natural selection haphazardly produced an eyeball(without any pre-approved plan). shouldn't that alone be cause for celebration? What good is color if there are no eyes to see it? aren't we special because of the fact we can distinguish color? The color of the universe would be void without eyeballs!
One thing foresure, of all the billions and billions of Suns out there, if they are the cause of Life. They would surely want eyeballs around to see their light!
If Evolutionist can't find it in their heart to think they are special just by having eyeballs. Then maybe they could find it special not just to see, but then be able to ask "why" or "how come"!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!