Neither is the fact that we drive on the right and live proof that it is morally correct to do so.
I want to take a moment here to thank everyone for stopping in so far, all contributions have been great, and though there’s a little hot-under-the-collar brusqueness now and again we’ve kept it quite civilized for a discussion of ethics, so thanks for that, too. And of course, I didn’t think it was rude at all, Spiritus, your compliment of my OP was thanks enough. 
And now I just want to clarify that I was agreeing with godzillatemple, not correcting or anything like that.
’zilla, eris, and Fewl: Consider the following:
I have a population of amoebas living in a petri dish. These amoebas can only live within a specific temperature range: if it gets too cold, or too hot, they die.
Having godlike powers in this thought experiment, we take these little amoebas and alter them slightly. We give them a physical temperature sense of some kind (the actual mechanism is irrelevant), and connect it to the mechanisms that control its movement: pseudopodia and so forth.
However, we change the amoebas in three different ways. A third are set up so that they head for areas of high heat. A third are altered so that they don’t respond one way or another. And the last third are designed so that they’ll move away from heat.
The three groups have three different responses or inherent inclinations about heat, yes? Now we heat a randomly-selected part of the dish, making a small region too hot for the amoebas in it to survive. What will happen to the distribution of preferences among the amoeba?
Now imagine a population of humans that we alter in a similar way. From one third, we remove their fear or dislike of rotting food. It’s just like any other food to them. To another, we give them a strong liking for rotting food: it tastes pleasant and satisfying to them. In fact, they experience cravings for it. To the last third, we intensify their dislike; they’re repulsed by the very idea of eating spoiled food and become strongly nauseated at its presence. We cause all the humans to lose any cultural traditions about the nature of rotting food (to avoid contamination of the experiment).
Now, we let the population be for a while, then return. What will we find? I’ll tell you: if there are any people from the first or second group remaining, they’ve developed a tradition that rotten food is extremely bad, no matter how appealing it might be. The last group will probably be in the majority: anyone who enjoyed eating rotten food or had no problems with it and did so has died.
If we disrupt the social transmission of tradition (as occasionally happens), the spoiled-food-haters will outnumber the others even more.
Here’s an even simpler example: we pick up small groups of people (in our nifty UFOs!) and tamper with their minds (by, I don’t know, ‘neural reconditioning’) in four different ways. One group is convinced that they can fly by jumping off of cliffs while flapping their arms and that this activity is incredibly enjoyable, another is convinced that’s impossible and should be avoided at all costs. Another group is convinced that they hate asparagus and should never eat it, while the last is convinced that they love asparagus and should eat it whenever reasonably possible.
We put these people back and come back in a year. What do we find?
The people who wanted to jump off of cliffs are all dead, while most of the people who didn’t are still alive. There’s no real difference between the groups who hated and loved asparagus.
If we accept that whatever people feel, desire, or prefer is “valid”, what do we notice about the nature of validity as time passes?
TVAA: As long as you persist in claiming that moral principles can be applied to non-humans, or that the entire concept of “morality” even makes sense when discussing non-humans, I fear the gulf between your basic assumptions and those of everyone else renders meaningful discussion impossible.
As for your second thought experiment, what if there are no cliffs where the first group live? They’ve heard about cliffs, and think that if they ever saw a cliff it would be enjoyable to jump off one, but they don’t actually do so. Does that make their belief therefore “correct” since it doesn’t actually lead to extinction?
Just wondering…
I don’t notice anything, actually. The determination of validity, using the given definition, seems rather static, as we might expect.
Sorry, my comments were in regard to your third thought experiment.
As for your second thought experiment, it is so extreme in its assumptions that it’s hard for me to evaluate whether its conclusions can have any real-world application whatsoever. Regardless, however, it seems to be equating “choice” with irresistable biological impulses, which is an assumption I do not share. In addition, it still does not address the problem as to how one would know if the “choice” being made was the sole or even determinative cause of the group’s demise?
Barry
** You’re missing the point. Words actually describe conditions – although they’re often used carelessly in everyday conversation, there are still conclusions that we can draw from language. Mathematics is simply a form of language in which there is little to no uncertainty about what concept a particular symbol represents, and mathematics is all about drawing conclusions.
If you overheard someone say “everything I say is a lie”, you’d probably accept the loosely intended meaning instead of what they actually said, right? The same principle holds if you heard someone say they did something “all the time”: they don’t mean it literally.
Nevertheless, when we’re debating such important topics, we need to use language precisely and correctly. What you’re asking for is a contradiction in terms: a true paradox. It cannot be: analyzing your words results in a self-refuting conclusion. Just parsing it gives me a headache.
When people begin making these sorts of statements, I’ve found that it’s usually because they can’t justify their positions but are unwilling to admit this. (In fairness to them, I suspect that many of them are psychologically unable to think about the possibility of these things being wrong, so it’s not so awful that they refuse to do so.)
Tell us. If it’s really so obvious, you won’t have a difficult time explaining it, will you? If you can’t, perhaps it wasn’t quite as obvious as you thought.
** But we’re dicussing morality with language, and I assure you that your word choices are leading to contradictory results.
** But these perceptions shape things which are objective. Feelings are no different from any other thing: they’re part of the universe, just as the internal states of a computer exist objectively. What you’re really claiming is that the appropriate nature of the feelings you get is subjective; whether you have them or not is objective.
** Bingo!
So, why should anyone care if there are a lot of dead people on the road in a very short time. (Don’t discard this question because you think it’s “obvious”: actually consider why anyone should care.)
I’m afraid I need to ask you to pay very close attention to what we’re defining, here.
“Validity” is not defined as possibly being valuable to some being, it’s defined as being valued by some being.
The set of valued things is not necessarily static, and it’s changing rapidly in the proposed thought experiments.
Don’t worry – I was simply mocking your use of the same phrase in an earlier post. You have repeatedly stated that things are “obvious” as if no further discussion was needed. Nice to know that you can appreciate the flaws inherent in such a statement.
I’m going to have to let others carry the ball for me for the time being, as my free time here at work has suddenly disappeared and I’ve got plans at home this evening. If you guys are still at it tomorrow eveing, I’ll try to stop by.
I just didn’t want you to feel ignored…
Barry
On preview, I see that, as ever, I’m late to the dance. However, what I have to say still applies, I think.
Umm, TVAA, I see no connection between your post which begins “'zilla, eris, and Fewl: Consider the following:” and morality.
Certainly rotting food can be harmful. Certainly human cultures have a learned aversion to some rotting foods because of this. But morality is not necessarily involved. Would you call me a bad person because I’ve been known to eat blue cheese, or a rare, well-aged steak? Of course, a fanatic vegan might, particularly for the latter … but that judgement would be made from within the vegan’s moral system (and would be about the steak itself, not the state of the steak) and would have very little, if anything, to do with my survival, the vegan’s or humanity’s.
Sorry, I do not see how this justifies your assumption that morality is equivalent to survival and that therefore survival (or evolution) is the objective and absolute standard of morality. As I said, I don’t see how you even connect morality to what you are talking about.
Enough, sir, is enough. Either supply us with some sensical reasoning which leads you use to the word morality in the manner in which you insist on using it, yet which has no connection to any use of the word with which the rest of us who have been following this thread are familiar, or admit that you are not talking about morality at all, let alone moral relativism.
Please. Start another thread which lays out how you equate morality with survival and how survival/evolution (I’m not sure anymore which one of those you mean when you use either word) is the ultimate standard of morals.
** What I am suggesting is that their morality dictated a way in which they should live, and that way of life could not survive those events. Their way of life couldn’t even detect them, and it’s doubtful whether they could have escaped if they had someone sensed them.
Therefore, their way of life (and by extension, their morality and tradition) was lacking, and they died for it. There have been civilizations that were destroyed because their methods of agriculture were non-sustainable. Their way of life was wrong, although they didn’t realize it until too late. That’s how the Maya went, and probably what happened to the Anasazi. Now, considering the Anasazi as a prime example: their way of life is dead. Their traditions are dead. Any culture, and existence as a “people”, any beliefs about the right ways to do things (whether “merely moral” or practical) are dead. They are no longer factors in the set of opinions about what is right.
** Tell me, what “purpose” does a moral system have? And not only that, tell me why that purpose is justified, and what justification the justification has.
That’s what’s so critically important to understand about evolution: it produces justifications on its own. You don’t think survival is important? Fine – but there will quickly be no others like you. You’ve read The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, yes? Remember the (what was it called again?) Crested Frond Eagle of Damogran, who built its nest out of paper-mache, making it virtually impossible for chicks to break out of it? Why do you think there aren’t any creatures who “feel” it’s right to make it virtually impossible for its offspring to survive?
You don’t get it. Moralities aren’t the only thing that determine survival, but the necessity of survival inevitably dictates the nature of moralities.
** The “function” of all our attributes is the perpetuation of the species. That’s what evolution does – turn arbitrary randomness into a kind of order, turn meaninglessness into purpose.
** No. He keeps telling you to pay no attention to the giant floating head.
** Agreed. That definition of “good” is meaningless, since there are no actions that the label of “bad” can then be applied to. It makes no distinctions, and so is useless.
** I’d be more appreciative if I hadn’t already explained how it followed from basic principles. In that case, it really is obvious.
** It’s much more than that. Human beings have an instinctual distaste for rotting foods. It isn’t learned, it’s innate. If anything, we’ve had to develop a taste for certain kinds of food that our instincts suggest should be bad for us. (Raw meat, certain cheeses, things with mold on them, etc.)
But there are plenty of creatures that seek out and thrive on decaying matter. Why are we repelled while they’re attracted to the stuff? And is there any way in which both our reactions and theirs can be considered appropriate or correct?
** [sigh] I’m still not making this clear enough.
Morality, whether learned or innate, by its nature causes people to seek out certain things, tolerate certain things, reject certain things, and avoid certain things. If people had arbitrarily-chosen moralities (no matter how they acquired them), some would cause people to accept things that harmed them and reject things that would help them. (Even the standards of “harm” and “help” ultimately depend on survival; I use the terms only for clarity.)
Those preference systems will cease to exist, or at least will be much less likely to persist. Ones that are neutral will hang around, and ones that are advantageous will tend to not only be passed down but to increase.
Given that we will consider “valid” any position that will be held, we quickly find that the range of “valid” beliefs isn’t arbitrary at all, but falls into specific patterns. There’s a reason the belief that human life is extremely precious is more commonly held where the population density was relatively low. There’s a reason human life is valued more cheaply where it’s more common and more expendable. The distribution of those moral principles is not arbitrary, but is determined by evolutionary logic.
Cite?
OK, I’ve got time for one more post before I head out, and then that’s it for awhile, I swear…
See, this is where you lose me. Their “way of life” (which includes, but is not solely comprised of, their moral system) failed them. However, it’s ludicrous to suggest that all actions of a society are determined solely by that society’s moral system. Even if you are correct that a society’s “way of life” must have been “wrong” if they didn’t survive, morality makes up but one component of that “way of life,” and you have no way of telling if that is the component that led to failure.
If I’m driving my car and a tire blows, causing the wheel to suddenly jerk in my hand so that I drive into a tree, it is certainly true that the car failed me. Does it necessarily follow, however, that the engine failed me? Or the little light in the glove compartment? Yes,In suppose, if the purpose of the engine and that little light is to prevent the car from crashing. If, however, the purpose of the little light is to help me find the map when the car is parked, or if the purpose of the engine is to propel the car, then the fact that the “car failed” provides no basis to judge the engine or the little light in the glove compartment.
Once again, you have assumed what the “purpose” of morality is by defining it in a way that is different from how other people use it. You have rejected my suggestion that you really mean “instinct” (although I note that in your last post you talk about how “Human beings have an instinctual distaste for rotting foods,” but I digress).
And? Once again, how do you know it is their moral system that caused the failure? You can only make this assumption through circular reasoning by first assuming that the sole function of morality is the survival of a society, and then arguing that the moral system must have failed because the society failed.
When did I ever say that survival is not important? Can I call for a cite here?
What I’ve said is that morality is not necessarily concerned with survival. It may have other purposes, such as providing for the smooth interaction between members of a society.
Is that it? Nothing more than that?
Well, if you truly believe that, then I guess there’s nothing left to discuss. That’s one hell of a fundamental assumption that by its very nature will affect all your arguments. It’s not one that I share, however, which makes this whole excercise rather pointless. Had I known up front that you felt that all of our attributes have the same purpose (i.e., perpetuation of the species), I never would have bothered discussing the issue with you.
Just remember, though – it is a subjective assumption on your part, not an “objective” or “obvious” truth.
pax vobiscum.
Barry
Who will consider that so?
Well, godzillatemple, for one. Take a second look at his position throughout this thread.
And it’s the necessary consequence of your own stance, taken to its logical end. You have enough empathic capacity to simulate any arbitrary set of emotional associations; since every set has its negation, that means that emotion alone can’t lead you to any particular way of looking at the world. You can feel anything that another human can feel, and that limits you as much as it frees you.
You think logic and reason will help? Try it – without motivation, which is an aspect of emotion, reason does nothing and accomplishes nothing. If you have no goals, the ability to reach goals is meaningless.
Of course, evolutionary logic is capable of explaining how goals and purposes can arise from purposeless processes. If you can find a replacement, please enlighten us. You’ll have made a major breakthrough in applied philosophy.
Acknowledged.
** First: what difference does it make whether I can determine which factor was responsible or not? We’re discussing what is, not what I can know. It doesn’t matter if I know there’s a flaw in the girders I’m using to build a bridge: it’s either there, or not, and the consequences that derive from that have nothing to do with my perceptions.
Secondly: it doesn’t matter whether all of a society’s actions are directed by its “moral system” or not. The moral system can still be said to fail. If it dictates that the society do something which leads to its destruction, it has failed them, regardless of what else has or hasn’t failed them as well.
** Yes – you can’t say much about the individual components. The system failed.
** What’s the point in ensuring that the members of a society interact smoothly?
Take your reasoning as far as you’d like: evolution will be waiting for you at the end. Ultimately, all needs and desires are derived from it. It’s as I told you: there is no escape.
** Utter garbage.
Any purpose other than “perpetuation” will quickly cease being a part of the universe. Attributes incompatible with continued existence ceased existing; they’re no longer a part of the now. They’re not what we’re confronted with when we examine the universe; they’re not the meaningful principles logic and reason can derive from evolutionary necessity.
The crude and imperfect understanding of this concept that so many peoples have intuited is why “tradition” is valued, why “time-honored” practices are so often considered better than others.
The traditions and practices handed down to you were handed down because they were effective in getting people to perpetuate them; some of them may even be useful to you in helping you perpetuate yourself. Your inborn assumptions, needs, models, and “truths” are the result of evolution. Your ability to process and put into practice new ideas and principles relies on what has gone before, and it is only present because evolution put it there.
When we accept a few very basic facts about the universe, evolution logically follows. If you want to question those facts, and analyze why they appear to be true and how they arise, that’s fine, but that hasn’t been what this thread is about. It doesn’t matter whether you or I can understand, or whether you agree. It happens anyway. There is no escape.
Well, there’s the teleology. That would cure atavism.
Yep.