Well?
erislover? Fatwater Fewl? godzillatemple?
Can any of you demonstrate another way of generating and establishing goals besides evolutionary processes? A method that isn’t ultimately equivalent to acknowledging that some things survive and others don’t?
I, for one, would really like to hear about such a method. Please, illuminate me.
Well that’s the trick, of course, because anything we bring up you’ll just relate to survival like some six degrees of seperation game.
But I don’t think Darwin had goal-seeking in mind when he developed the theory of evolution, and AFAIK it hasn’t come up since then, either.
But evolution isn’t teleological. Creatures haven’t developed the traits that they have because some cosmic force wants things to survive. It’s just that the things that didn’t don’t exist anymore.
There’s no reason our species couldn’t have developed to become more like the tigers who fight over territory and have little to no “social” interaction. On the other hand, I suspect it would be highly unlikely for an “intelligent” species to develop out of those circumstances.
teleological: exhibiting or relating to design or purpose especially in nature
[blinks]
So… what exactly are you suggesting? Some variant of ID?
Saying the world is designed is like saying water seeks the lowest level. It’s a figure of speech.
by what standards do you make this judgement?
(sorry, this is back from like page 3, but i’m at work and haven’t got the time to read 4-6 at the moment. but it seems to get to the heart of the debate).
Nothing new to add to the “debate” (such as it is). Let me just say:
I’d be happy to do so, just as soon as I finish demonstrating to the satisfaction of certain theists a way of generating and establishing goals without reference to God.
Unfortunately, it may take awhile…
Barry
If you get a chance, take a look at the thread entitled Morality and God (simplified this time) and scroll down until you reach the post made by kelly5078.
I think she understands the gist of the concept I’m talking about.
TVAA, I’m pretty sure I understand what you’re saying in this thread. And if I do, then it’s a safe bet, I think, that erl and godzillatemple do. We just don’t agree with an basic assumption you’re making.
No, it isn’t. But your use of it to achieve an absolute moral standard is.
Actually, what erl is talking about when he brings up teleology is what you’re suggesting.
You can say “figure of speech” all you want, but when we get right down to it your whole construction of “morality = survival = evolution”, the crux of your argument rests on evolution as a “designer” with an active purpose. That purpose being to achieve an optimum form.
This is a teleological view of evolution. And it rests on the aforementioned basic assumption with which I do not agree. That assumption being that evolution proceeds towards an end/goal/purpose.
Evolution simply proceeds. Willy-nilly, as it were.
Since I do not agree that evolution proceeds towards an end/goal/purpose, I cannot agree that it is the absolute standard for morality. Therefore I remain unconvinced by your argument against moral relativism.
No, no, no!
You’ve done nothing but prove you don’t understand what I’m saying. Evolution is our name for the process by which purposes arise from processes that don’t have purpose. It’s not a designer – it creates things with designs. There is a non-trivial distinction!
There is no “active purpose”. Just as water has no purpose in flowing towards low areas, but does so as a consequence of certain basic physical principles, the evolution of the universe over time has no purpose or goal, but generates certain high-level properties and patterns. Among these patterns are particularly complex ones known as “living creatures”, and these patterns have goals and purposes.
There’s no purposeful reason that multiple orbiting bodies tend to fall into a plane as time passes. It’s simply a consequence of certain physical principles. There’s no purposeful reason that patterns arise with the appearance of design. There are watches but no watchmaker. Because of the laws of physics, certain kinds of patterns appear over and over in the universe; these patterns can to some degree be anticipated and understood, much as the crystalline structure of salt can be predicted by an understanding of its component elements. That does not mean that the universe is proceeding towards a goal!
My argument in favor of this theory is NOT my argument against moral relativism in any case. Moral relativism steps outside moral systems in order to examine them, but doesn’t substitute a system of evaluation to replace the standards being studied. The application of moral relativism relies on the implicit use of a moral evaluating system – it takes for granted what it claims to be examining, then pretends that it isn’t.
Yes, I do understand.
You are falling into the “Is-Ought Gap” fallacy (as erl pointed out pages back).
It is a fact that our consciousness is a result of evolution. It is a fact that consciousness allows us to entertain the concept “morality”. You are saying that because consciousness is a result of evolution, conciousness should remain bound by evolution’s apparent standard: survival.
There are two value judgements here. One is the ‘should’. The other is in two parts:
These have led you to a teleological argument.
NO.
“Should” has nothing to do with it. It IS bound by evolution’s standard: it can’t avoid being so.
The goals are a end result of the universe’s behavior, not vice versa.
It’s not that this position cannot be disproven; it’s that it cannot be invalidated if we accept certain basic principles.
If I note that life on this planet depends directly on the highly unusual properties of water, and that those properties result from the structure of the electron clouds in water atoms, and that the structure is the result of basic mathematical principles that manifest in elementary geometry and highly advanced quantum physics, and that the all life ultimately depends on the nature of mathematics…
…and you say “You’re suggesting that the laws of physics and mathamatics intended to create life.”…
Well, heaven help you. I certainly can’t.
No one is saying that. We’re saying evolution cannot eliminate plural moral systems at any particular moment in time, that is, survival as a criterion of moral goodness does not create a single system. Furthermore, I don’t think you’ve sufficiently demonstrated that it is the only criterion possible, even objectively. On top of that, there’s the niggling issue of it not even successfully selecting at all due to atavistic moral codes recurring at various points in time.
In short: you haven’t left relativism, you’ve demonstrated a system inside of it.
To create a single moral system, even in the ideal (ie after an infinite amount of time) case, requires teleology. To create a single moral method requires better grounding that you’ve given it, which as far as I’m concerned is pretty much none at all since I don’t count poems as rational grounds. Atavism remains a problem still, which teleology will take care of.
I don’t see how you can escape it. Plural moral codes are independently “ok” by your criterion, survival isn’t obviously the only criterion necessary (you don’t find that a statement in need of a little development?), and things that have been selected against can return again and not be selected against. In what way this provides us with a privileged system really seems unfounded. As far as I can tell it sounds like a perfect example of a system that demands relativity. In what ways?
All three of which, of course, are totally arguable. The nature versus nurture debate is older than you or I (that’s (1)), by your own admission scientific understanding is quite limited in complex cases ie like those humans face on a moral level (that’s (2)), and the nature of the relationship between concepts and genetic traits is not actually established to the point of having conceptual evolution (that is, memetics) be a science (that’s (3)). So long as these are the case, we cannot select between them, for if we could, they wouldn’t be the case as we already would have.
If you argue the selection agent (i.e.- the universe) still is absolute and objective, you can’t still claim it has actually been put to use since plural systems, in fact, exist.
Again, it isn’t a matter of the survival criteria serving as an illustration of an objective criteria that will undermine relativism, but that this criteria demonstrates which systems are right and wrong to establish the absolute. The absolute is not established: moral codes are all over the place and varied in different ways. With your criterion of survival, you cannot eliminate them from consideration.
** The “single system” it creates is that of compatibility with survival. Anything existing this moment has managed to do so; of greater importance from our perspective are the principles that determine what persists across time.
“Relativism” doesn’t include anything; it’s a way of looking at the systems, but it’s a meaningless one since it can’t make any judgments about them.
** Atavism isn’t a problem in the first place. Neither is the “multiple system” problem you’re so concerned about: any systems that can survive indefinitely are equivalent as far as their compatibility with the ultimate nature of things goes. What difference does it make if there are known multiple paths to the same goal?
** We’re talking about infinite time, eris. We’re also talking about whatever continues; if the thing constantly returns, that cycle is what’s compatible.
** No. Morality is not relative to our current understanding; the choices we’re convinced are moral are relative to our current understanding.
You continually take for granted that morality is subjective and contingent on our opinions. Cut it out!
** This is a nonsensical objection. If something meets the criteria, it meets the criteria – the existence of independent criteria does not in any way imply that there must be a single state compatible with them.
Yes, well, since the point of a moral system is that it guides us in making choices, that’s the relevant system. The other is useless.
No, actually, I don’t. I take it for granted that our ability to make decisions is influenced by our current understanding. Only you are reading into that more than I put there.
Of course. Which is why relativism allows the existence of multiple moral systems: they all meet the criteria of “describing goodness”.
“Meaningful” does not mean, as far as I have ever known, “able to make judgments”.
** Not at all.
The exact same situation holds with the laws of physics. (In reality, it really is the same situation, but we’re not quite up to that yet.) Our theories limit what we imagine is possible, but what is isn’t dependent on what we think.
Given limited available data, there are still conclusions we can draw. What we need to acknowledge is that there is a reality to moral systems beyond what WE decide.
** They’re all possible ways of satisfying that criterion, then. And there must be plenty of other ways that aren’t.
The point is that “goodness” is a concept that extends beyond the moral systems themselves. If they’re used to define goodness, anything’s possible.
The statements must make actual assertions, and contain actual information. That means they must exclude something and include something.
If the statements can’t lead us to any conclusion, what are we conveying by saying them?
The necessity of this is driven by unsupportable assumptions. However, it would be silly to think that just because we have a moral system at this time that it couldn’t be improved or modified. I don’t know any moral philosophers who don’t admit this is the case. What impact you think this has on relativism is unclear.
Anything is possible that is possible. If it is moral or immoral for me to kill, that doesn’t mean it is necessary or impossible that I kill. Is / ought. Epistemology: there is a proper way we should reason, not “there is a way we reason.” Morality: there is a way we should behave, not “there is a way we behave.” Morality and epistemology are normative, not descriptive.
I doubt this will be the final word on the subject, but this is probably the last I will spend on it.
To humor TVAAA and to increase my general knowledge, I’ve spent a little time reading up on Evolutionary Ethics and Evolutionary Psychology. And I’ve discovered that much of what TVAA says is certainly not unique to him. There are many people who feel that our current moral systems are, in fact, the result of evolutionary drives.
What I haven’t found so far, however, is anybody else who believes that a particular society’s moral system can be evaluated with reference to evolution. Explained, yes. But not evaluated. It’s the old “is-ought” fallacy often referred to as “Humes Law” (after the philosopher who proposed it), and which is generally stated as “we can’t deduce an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’” And I think this is where TVAA misses the boat.
Assuming for the sake of argument that our sense of morality – of what is “good” and “bad” – is the product of evolution (just like our sense of aesthetics, our capacity to reason, etc.), this does not provide us any practical way of determining whether a particular moral system is better suited to our survival than any other. To say that a particular society’s existing moral system must be correct simply because the society has survived to this point is fallacious, since there’s no guarantee that society won’t fail tomorrow. It also ignores the fact that there are other societies with different moral systems that are also currently suriving, which would lead one to the conclusion that any system that permits a society to survive must be “correct,” even if the systems are inherently contradictory.
On the other hand, to say that evolutionary principles can eventually lead us to judge which moral system is “correct” is both specious and impractical. It is impractical because one would literally need to wait forever to see if a particular society eventually fails, since (once again) the mere fact that a society has survived up until now is no guarantee that it will survive tomorrow. TVVA has acknowledged this fact repeatedly, even admitting that trying to evaluate moral systems in real time can result in a "crude approximation"at best, but he sidesteps this issue by claiming that other fields of inquiry such as the study of physics must also be satisfied with makin “crude approximations.” Insofar as scientific theories can be tested through experimentation in real time and have allowed scientists to make accurate predictions, however, his justification is not particularly compelling.
To say that evolutionary principles can eventually lead us to judge which moral system is “correct” is specious because a moral system is but one contributing factor to a society’s survival, and there’s no justification for assuming that a society’s failure was the result of an incorrect moral system. TVAA’s only defense to this objection is to resort to circular arguing, claiming that “Moralities aren’t the only thing that determine survival, but the necessity of survival inevitably dictates the nature of moralities.” Unfortunately, if the nature of moralities are “inevitably dictated” by the necessity of survival, then one cannot choose between them; their existence is dictated and not a matter of choice. In other words, TVAA has postulated what “is” and confused it with what “ought to be” in violation of Hume’s Law.
It is also specious because the whole concept of evolutionary ethics assumes that moral systems will evolve over time to adapt to changing situations. If moral systems are in a constant state of flux, there is no way to ever point to a particular system and say “there – THAT is the correct system.” Just as a “successful” society may fail without warning, so too may a moral system change without warning, rendering any thought of evaluating the “correctness” of particular system impossible.
To sum up, TVAA certainly has some good ideas, ideas that are shared by numerous other people. However, while other people use the same basic assumptions in an attempt to explain morality (usually in the context of showing that God is not required), TVAA is seemingly alone in his attempt to use these assumptions to come up with a system of evaluating moral systems.
I wish him the best of luck with his efforts, but I fear he is doomed to failure. Especially since he seems unable to put forth his arguments without redefining common terms and generally warping the English language beyond recognition to suit his own needs. All great pioneers see further than their contemporaries, however, and many were mocked as fools in their lifetime. So maybe, just maybe, TVAA is actually onto something and will someday find an articulate way of explaining what it is he actually means.
Regards,
Barry
** Not quite. It’s driven by inevitable conclusions, derived from “assumptions” so elementary that most people can’t even conceive of their existence.
It is possible to challenge the conclusion rationally, but you’ll have to throw out a whole lot of babies to reach the bathwater. Reject the assumptions that make evolution inevitable and you reject all humanly comprehensible ideas. You’re skilled at philosophy, erislover, but you’re not up to that.
** No – our theories can be improved, because there’s no way to ever determine if they match reality. The only way they would necessarily match trure reality would be if they were also the ultimate standards themselves, and that’s logically impossible: we’re part of the universe, not the whole. Actual morality cannot be improved upon. Nor can it be changed. It is.
“The laws of physics permit me to build poorly-designed bridges, therefore there is no way to say that I shouldn’t build poorly-designed bridges.”
Tell me, why should you reason a certain way? You must cite a reason that is either part of your system – in which case your position devolves into an endless cycle of self-recursion – or something external, something beyond your system itself. Choose that option and my position is inevitable.
You have goals. To reach those goals, there are paths you can take, but the nature of those paths isn’t arbitrary – they’re set by the nature of the universe. Why should you have those goals? Evolution takes care of that little problem.
** [sigh] I’m sorry, Barry, but I must insist that you’re still missing the point.
I’m not claiming that because some strategy is being used, it is therefore good. That’s the good old “is-ought” fallacy. I’m claiming something significantly more profound: that the manner in which what is at any moment in time changes throughout time can be used to derive theories about the nature of correctness.
Someone once said that if you wanted to understand the power of evolutionary forces, just have someone kick you in the groin. (You’re supposedly male, so this example applies.) That agony is evolution telling you “Don’t do that!” And why shouldn’t you do that? Granted, pain is usually an effective deterrent, but why should you feel so much more pain in this case as opposed to another?
You desire to breathe. You desire to eat. You desire to drink. If you stop doing these things, you suffer immensely and experience incredibly powerful impulses to remedy the situation. Why does this happen?
Humans are programmed to find certain physiological triggers endearing: large head relative to the body, large eyes relative to the head, relatively flat nose, etc. These are features of infants, but we respond to them so strongly that we have the same reaction to other species’ young, and inanimate objects, with the same proportions. We also experience infants’ screams as extremely unpleasant – research has shown that it’s the least preferred of all noises. Why is this the case?
Quit bringing “should” into this. Forget “should”. There is no “should”. “Should” exists only in your mind. If we’re looking for the source of “should”, the justification for morality, we’ll necessarily have to look for something that doesn’t have “should”.
** The problem here is that you’re using an invalid definiton of “better”. In your mind, you’re still associating it with human value judgments. Stop! At the level of realilty we’re examining, there are no human value judgments. Accepting your definition leads inevitably to endless recursion and meaningless concepts defined in terms of themselves.
** “To say that a particular theory of physics is correct simply because it explains all observable phenomena is fallacious, since there’s no guarantee that it won’t fail to accurately predict the next observation.”
** Quit looking at a moment in time and look through time. Some ideas thrive, others die. Why do some thrive and others die?
** I also told you that meaningful conclusions can be drawn about the nature of what is right, but you ignored that. You also don’t understand just what modern science can do – our ability to make accurate predictions is remarkably limited. We can make those predictions only by massively simplifying our models and generating models about many different layers of reality. In theory, we should be able to generate conclusions about biology from the rules of quantum physics, but no one can actually do that. Instead, we generate special rules about living systems from observation and presume that they derive from more fundamental science.
** Again, you miss the point. When the overall system fails, we can’t tell which of its parts were flawed, but we can look at enough similar systems to be able to reasonably deduce what some of the problems are.
** Everything that ever happens is inevitable; probability and choice are illusions. In one sense, you “choose” nothing: your every action is inherent in every other aspect of time. In another, we don’t know what your actions will be, and you appear to make decisions about what you do.
** C’mon – this “problem” occurs with everything. We can never “point to the correct system”. We can only point to what we know works best. Still, what is correct is always defined, just not by us.
** Ooh. You’re getting plutonium in your stocking for that one, mister.
You weren’t around yet when erislover and I had our little discussion about the philosopher, the waitress, and the pie a la mode, were you? I’m sure eris remembers – he was responsible for the second half of the story.