Sorry, I meant to respond to this more directly. I have doubts that God wants or doesn’t want anything in the sense that we understand it. I’m still working on that one though.
I don’t understand what this has to do with what I asked you. How do you define morality?
[quote]
Socially coopererative??
Do you deny that we are a social species? Do you deny that we are a cooperative species?
Yep. Our inhabitat covers most of the world’s landmass, we basically rule over many other species, and no species can touch us.
Then what species is the “adult”?
[QUOTE]
I made a note, Its on my reading list.
They do? Have you checked the single parent statistics lately? I can accpet that a large part of our traditional family structure is evolutionary and cultural. The mythos of true love, which I associate with the family structure and that sense of unity we seek though family and elsewhere, is the calling of that still small voice I mentioned in my previous post.
Survival of the species only answers part of it for me. Our seeking, striveing and wondering goes far beyond what is nessecary.
[QUOTE]
Then perhaps you should review your own post. You asked
How I define morality is a different question. I don’t see morality as one thing.As a standard, it fluctuates from person to person culture to culture. Each person must define it for themselves whatever their influences.
Yes we are a social species. Cooperative? That would depend on your definition or what species we are being compared to.
Wouldn’t you say our cooperation is a little erratic and inconsistant?
Covering and ruleing. IS that your definition of success?
The species we have yet to discover and become.
I asked where morality comes from. I didn’t understand your answer. That’s why I asked a followup question. No need to get snippy.
How do you define it? Not what your personal morality is, but how do you define the word “morality”? What does it mean?
Tarantulas? Earthworms? Cats? Great white sharks?
Humans cooperate better than any other species I know of (well, there may be some insects). We are definitely a cooperative species.
Not really, when compared to other species. Everything you see around you, including that monitor you’re reading this on, is a direct result of cooperation of the most advanced kind, so advanced that other species aren’t even playing the same game.
Multiplying and ensuring the survival of the species is evolutionary success. You cannot deny that we are damn good at that.
Note that I’m not saying that evolutionary success is “good” or “bad” or “evil” or “right” or “wrong” or any of those things. But humanity is a very successful species.
So we’re infants compared to something that doesn’t exist?
Bingo!
I can go with that, but it’s a very human-centric view. Why does morality/amorality have significance? Why does there have to be any significance?
It’s not yet plainly simple to me! Can non-identical things have identical essences? Is the essence of the Sasquatch the same as that of a gorilla?
You said that amorality is the essence of the universe, and used unicorns and Sasquatches as examples. I can’t reconcile the implications of those examples with a one-word, non-unique essence for the universe. It’s like saying the essence of the Sasquatch is “hairiness”. Seems far from complete.
Tricky subject. I’ll run with this for the moment, although I have some reservations about it. (Just a thought - do you not consider that evolution may determine what we find aesthetic to some degree? Do we choose to enjoy sweet things and dislike bitter things? )
Okay, thanks!
Our modern technological society is wealthy enough that individuals can get by as single parents, but it has existed for less than the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. You want to be checking the single parent statistics for hunter-gathers.
I don’t disagree, but I think that “still small voice” is the result of evolution as well!
Question - lions and tigers are physiologically almost identical, and can interbreed to a limited extent. The lions in Africa are co-operative pack-hunters that form prides. The tigers in Asia are lone hunters that don’t form groups. Are the lions listening to their “small voice” and the tigers ignoring it?
I believe they have they evolved different behaviours which are optimum for their different territories and prey. Lions have evolved some equivalent to the “small voice” which makes them enjoy each others company, and practice a degree of altruism. This is because social living works well for big cats on the plains of Africa but not in the jungles of Asia.
It’s things like this that make the work of philosophers unreal.
The simplest view of the universe is that it is exactly what it appears to be. Namely, mostly empty space containing a little bit of matter. The matter is objective and acts the same for all. If the view would accepted that there is real matter and other entities besides oneself that need to be taken into account
then philosphers could stop haggling about it and get on with the job of figuring out how we can best interact with each other and the objective universe for the benefit of all.
What difference does it really make whether or not the universe is real? Those things with which we have to deal in order to make the way through life act as if it is real and what else matters?
I think that it is a spirit-centric view. Morality has signficance because goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. Amorality (not immorality, mind you) has significance because it provides a morally neutral mis en scene in which humanity qua spirit may make free moral choices. It isn’t necessary, in se, that the universe have any significance. It isn’t necessary, in fact, that God created it. Whether He did or not, it serves His purpose all the same.
A thing may have any number of qualities that are essential. In the context of something useful to God and us (we are, after all, made in His image), the essence of the universe that concerns us is amorality.
Not exactly. I used unicorns and Sasquatches as examples of things that do not exist but have essence. As I said at the time, it is not necessary that something exist in order to have essence. (And thus, essence preceeds existence.)
As I said the first time around, the universe has certain other qualities as well, some of which you enumerated. But they are not significant with respect to a discussion of reality.
Again, man is a dual creature. Evolution is concerned with the man made of atoms. But the significant essence of man is not found in the atoms. Man, like God, is a free moral agent, and that’s what makes man significant. The universe will die. God is eternally living. As Jesus asked, “Why do you search for the living among the dead?”.
All matter may (or may not) work the same. (That it does is a postulate, and not an inference.) That aside, it is not perceived the same. Consider the example of the man, the snake, the tree, and the ground that I already mentioned. You and I discern a fundamental difference between the tree and the ground, but the snake does not. As he slithers down the tree, the ground represents nothing more than a change in slope, if that. All that the snake perceives is prey, mate, offspring, and all else. And even among men, no two have ever shared (nor can they ever share) the exact same experience in the exact same way from the exact same perspective at the exact same time. This is owing to the nature of electromagnetism. Even if you and I were standing side-by-side looking at the same object, our viewpoints are different because certain electromagnetic fields (our skulls) prevent us from pusing our eyeballs into the same space. The fact that every perception is unique eliminates all possibility of objective perspective. In this context, God may be thought of as the Objective Reference Frame.
[QUOTE=Priceguy]
Well I didn’t mention any personal morality. It is the thing I described that each person must choose for themselves and fluctuates depending on their culture and personal experience. In general it is a term we use to differentiate right form wrong or good from bad. Obviously those things aren’t the same to all people. I’m sorry if I’m not understanding your question.
If you say so. We may be labeled officially as a cooperative species in a scientific sense. OKay.
Alright, but war and crime and biogtry and prejudice and a few others that we are capable of chooseing to put an end to still abound. That is why I say our cooperation is erratic and inconsistant.
There are wonderful examples of our ability to cooperate. {I love my monitor} but there plenty of examples of a lack of cooperation. Compared to other species. Miles ahead. The goal of other species is to procreate and survive. We want that too, along with something more.
Well we’ve survived so I guess thats success. Of course we now have the potential to completely eliminate our own species serveral times over. Are their any other species who have acheived that kind of success?
We seem to off on a tangent from my questions. I guess this relates to family structure. As I said in another post I can accpet that a large part of our traditional family structure is evolutionary and cultural. The mythos of true love, which I associate with the family structure and that sense of unity we seek though family and elsewhere, is the calling of that still small voice I mentioned in my previous post.
No, we’re infants comapred to what we’ve had brief glimpses of as our potential.
Ghandi, Jesus, Buddha, others. Moments in history where peace, cultural exchange and religious expression flourished without violence. You can argue that evolution will get us there. I don’t agree. It is that still small voice of God that has allowed us these glimpses and kindles our hope for ourselves as individuals and a race.
A valid point and an excellent example. Here’s the difference. You’re speaking of survival. I’m talking about choices made on a different and more subtle level.
I’m talking about the aspects of moral choice that have little to do with survival of the race.
My question is So What? What do we do differently as a result of such an analysis that we would do without it?
Those who postulate an objective world outside our senses study that world and learn a lot about it and its operations because that outside world responds to stimuli in a repeatable, i.e. dependable way.
Those who worry about whether or not two creatures as different as a snake and a human live in the same world dither around with hypothetical arguments and get nowhere. Philosphers are still arguing the same hypotheticals as the preSocratics.
[QUOTE]
We choose differently. We choose according to our beliefs. What we believe is true, importent, valuble, crucial. As our perception of these things change, our choices change and the influence we have on the world changes.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I suppose this would be relevant if those whose choices count for something based them on discussions among philosophy majors and professors.
Have you considered that that voice/morality does not come from God? Would that “voice” be any different if God didn’t exist? I think that based on the social needs of a species like ours, social proclivities would be selected for, rather than against, so things like family structure, unity, compassion, kindness, etc. are explainable by the weak anthropic principle (note: I am not a cosmologist, nor am I a sociobiologist, so take this with a grain of thought.) we are here as a human culture with kindness, compassion, etc. because we are.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
everybodies choices count for something. If your comment was that discussions about vague and hard to comprehend points of phlosophy and religious theory don’t seem to relevent to the day to day, you may be right. My point is that the exchange of ideas in general is a part of what stimulates the thought process and helps us evolve. That affects our choices.
I don’t think morality comes from God. I think the still small voice calls us to truth.
Moral or immoral are fluctuating terms we use while we remain in the world of duality.
Our social proclivities seem to vary greatly. On a strictly evolutionary track I might expect us to be more pack oriented. We see those traits reflected in our choices. Yet those traits are the very ones the still small voice calls us away from. And so we help the Samaritan {I hope}
So “morality” means “differentiating between good and bad”?
Come on. What’s with the qualifiers? Skip the “nuclear bombs are so horrible and there’s so much violence and hatred” bit for a moment and realize that our ability to cooperate goes so far beyond that of other species that they can’t even see us through a telescope on a clear day. Why are you even disputing this? If we are not a cooperative species, what is?
What are these other species, and how are they miles ahead?
That is evolutionary success.
No. Why?
You are still confusing evolutionary success with something good or worthwhile or a noble goal. It’s not. It’s just what happens. It has nothing to do with some 2001 cosmic transcendence thing. You asked where I believed compassion and conscience came from, I answered. Apparently you believe these things come from God, in which case one might ask where all these bad things you choose to focus on come from.
Then what did you mean by
If morality doesn’t come from god, why do you need to qualify that question with “if there is no god”?
There seems to be a consensus among the Godly that the Ten Commandments are an important foundation for morality. At least they were allegedly given directly to Moses by God.
Scholars, however, are in pretty general agreement that the code of Hammurabi is essentially the same as the decalogue and preceded it by some 500 years.
So, did God move Hammurabi to formulate his code? And why? God had no covenant with him but He did with Abraham. So why not give Abraham the decalogue? After all he was God’s man and preceded Hammurabi by some 300 years or so. And the date of the Biblical creation is around 4000 BC. There were people all over the place in not too long a time after the flood but God didn’t get around to tell them not to kill each other without cause until some time around 1200 BC? You’ve got to be kidding.