Atheism, evolution and their implications

tech77

Hi.
I subscribe to evolution because i am scientifically-minded, however i'm not sold on atheism (agnostic at best).
But evolutionary theory and atheism, what are their ultimate implications.

With Atheism, morality is in no way derived from fear of punishment in an afterlife by a divinity (as it is with religions) which is fair enough.
So obviously atheistic morality is wholly socially derived- ie you do something bad, you'll be punished by society (if you're caught, that is) and not by an omniscient God.


But given human nature, is this atheistic morality compromised by:
1) If an immoral act is not witnessed and therefore punished by society then maybe the doer of the act can feel free to derive their own (naturally self-preserving) morality for that situation (if it means a better outcome for themselves than for a stranger whom they don't care as much about).

2) and if morality is wholly socially-derived, wouldn't the mightier (fitter if you will) have a greater say in what constitutes morality (again given human nature).


I know "not committing bad acts for fear of divine punishment" is not a fantastic moral system but isn't the atheistic version of this just "not doing bad acts for fear of societal punishment" (and if society doesn't witness it you're safe in the knowledge that no divinity witnessed it either so what the hey, even better).


Also, about the morality of evolutionary theory and "Social Darwinism":
If evolution is really about the survival of the fittest what are the implications for things like euthanasia, welfare etc.

Why would a society enlightened in terms of evolution deem it beneficial to support (with welfare etc) those who are truly regarded as useless to it.
It's an odd thing to ask but it's not immediately reconcileable in a strict evolutionary sense is it (apart from the notion of the remediabilty/perfectability of the societallly "useless" but that's not always possible surely).
Would "cutting off" the useless no longer be morally abhorrent in such a society.

And in such a society would things like euthanasia and abortion always be morally acceptable choices for people who wanted it.
In the case of abortion it would be whether the mother wants to keep it or not and nothing else.
In the case of euthanasia it would be down to whether the family would want to prolong the life of a relative and nothing else, i guess.
In other words in such a society could such things no longer be regarded as morally abhorrent.

I suppose i'm talking about relative vs absolute morality.
When you get into the realms of relative morality does this constitute a "slippery slope" where ultimately social might or power matters more than anything else.

TBH i'm just musing but i'd be interested to hear what you guys think.

pH

tech77 wrote: »

With Atheism, morality is in no way derived from fear of punishment in an afterlife by a divinity (as it is with religions) which is fair enough.
So obviously atheistic morality is wholly socially derived- ie you do something bad, you'll be punished by society (if you're caught, that is) and not by an omniscient God.

I'm not sure I agree with your highlighting of society there - take a simple example - you and me are the only two people people left of the planet - there is no society - I will still make it clear to you that if you steal something of mine that I value - there will be repercussions - nothing to do with morality at all - and nothing to do with society.

Given that there are billions of us on this planet not just two, society and all our laws make this manageable - we don't want our stuff stolen - if you do there will be consequences.

Also, about the morality of evolutionary theory and "Social Darwinism":
If evolution is really about the survival of the fittest what are the implications for things like euthanasia, welfare etc.

Just because we arrived here through a process of evolution through natural selection in no way somehow compels us to act in this manner ourselves.

Why would a society enlightened in terms of evolution deem it beneficial to support (with welfare etc) those who are truly regarded as useless to it.

I'm not sure what evolution has to do with this. If you're really asking why a society that isn't petrified by God's punishment wouldn't feel free to kill the disabled and exploit the poor/unprivileged as slaves to make the privileged even more powerful then you need to look as history a little better - it's the other way round - theocracies and societies where religion is powerful have appalling records on this, modern secular democracies in general much better ones.

It's an odd thing to ask but it's not immediately reconcileable in a strict evolutionary sense is it (apart from the notion of the remediabilty/perfectability of the societallly "useless" but that's not always possible surely).
Would "cutting off" the useless no longer be morally abhorrent in such a society.

Once again you take a natural process and somehow make a mental jump that you can look into that process for morality or values! Why the heck would you do that?

We understand gravity - it's a force that seems to push us down on the planet - does that mean it's OK for me to lean or sit on people?

Do you really believe that scientific understanding of natural laws and processes means we can infer from this knowledge a moral code? Which ones apart from evolution? What does the periodic table of the elements or Boyles Law tell us about how we should treat or fellow man?

bogwalrus

Whether you are atheist or christian your human morals should be the same (what is right and wrong). Its society that taints people to do wrong and society is tainted by bad governments and religious and non-religious beliefs (among a multitude of other things).

I live my life in a society being atheist and i only subscribe to my human morals of what is right and what is wrong and live my life as happy as i can. A christian (i hope ) does not do good so that he can get into heaven and is afraid of god, you should do good cause it is the right thing to do so people are happy. This is the same for an atheist.

Our emotions and feelings and all things that dictate our morality are developed through evolution so that humans could work better in societies for the greater good or advancement of the species. Humans nowadays are completely reliant on other humans to survive. This is the species we have evolved into and our morality plays a big part in its advancement.

In regards to euthanasia, if i see a human being that is in agony be it from a problem they are suffering from or something that will lower the standard of living for them for the rest of their life then i would feel it to be morally right to end that suffering. I would want this for myself. Others then might feel the opposite which is their moral decision on the situation. One thing that i feel to be wrong is that religious beliefs can cloud a persons idea of what is moral and what is not. If the church says euthanasia is wrong and basically makes a list of all things that are right and wrong then how is a person going to make a moral decision for themselves when it comes to very important things such as euthanasia.

I dunno how far from the point i have strayed here and how much makes sense but sure maybe it can further some discussion??

ressem

obviously atheistic morality is wholly socially derived- ie you do something bad, you'll be punished by society (if you're caught, that is

I'd have to disagree with that. It assumes that no-one develops personal ethics and morality apart from outside enforcement.

Personally, I think that it was when I started to recognise when acts of carelessness, neglect, mischief impacted on someone else and saw that they had been hurt, that I changed my behaviour just about immediately. Something which a upbringing of bible readings had failed to accomplish.

You could go on forever calculating the degrees of religion, society, family upbringing, genetics and brain chemistry are involved but seeing as other animals seem to display empathy also, it's unlikely to be 100% organised religion and I don't recall it being a conscious decision. "Felt" more like the brain freezing, backing up slowly and marking a bad pathway.

After all, if people aren't put off acting in harmful ways by the manifest threat of prisons, fines, and loss of social standing, I would suggest that it's a small fraction of them that are deterred by the threat of a bad afterlife.

I'd be of the opinion that religious law is just a subset of social law anyways, marking out social faux pas in areas which are hard to enforce or where there's no easy rationalising behind it. It also acts as a secondary preserve of society's laws during times when the state falls into disrepute.

tech77

I'm not sure I agree with your highlighting of society there - take a simple example - you and me are the only two people people left of the planet - there is no society - I will still make it clear to you that if you steal something of mine that I value - there will be repercussions - nothing to do with morality at all - and nothing to do with society.

This is actually exactly what i mean by socially-mediated morality
I don't care if you're talking about 2 people or 6 billion.
It's still about "not doing something because of the consequences".
So what i mean by "society" is just how others (whether 2 people or 6 billion) constrain your behaviour and influence your morality.

I'm not sure what evolution has to do with this. If you're really asking why a society that isn't petrified by God's punishment wouldn't feel free to kill the disabled and exploit the poor/unprivileged as slaves to make the privileged even more powerful then you need to look as history a little better - it's the other way round - theocracies and societies where religion is powerful have appalling records on this, modern secular democracies in general much better ones.

Yeah, scratch the term religion tbh, bad example.
Organised religion can be corrupted as you say so i suppose i should've used a term like spirituality instead really.
So again in the context of my OP, wouldn't some sort of spirituality and the recognition of some sort of divinity/karma (whatever ) not be a bad thing.

Once again you take a natural process and somehow make a mental jump that you can look into that process for morality or values! Why the heck would you do that?

Do you really believe that scientific understanding of natural laws and processes means we can infer from this knowledge a moral code? Which ones apart from evolution? What does the periodic table of the elements or Boyles Law tell us about how we should treat or fellow man?

Well i suppose the evolutionary process is just what it is as you say and nothing more.
But take a truly "useless" member of society (i hate using that term).
The evolutionary process doesn't allow such a person to survive naturally, so what compels a society that is fully-informed about evolution to artificially support such a "useless" member if they only take from society and give nothing back.
Would supporting them be hypocritical (intellectually atleast).

Scofflaw

ressem wrote: »

I'd have to disagree with that. It assumes that no-one develops personal ethics and morality apart from outside enforcement.

Personally, I think that it was when I started to recognise when acts of carelessness, neglect, mischief impacted on someone else and saw that they had been hurt, that I changed my behaviour just about immediately. Something which a upbringing of bible readings had failed to accomplish.

That would be appear to be the real driving force behind human morality - empathy. In addition, most people don't wish to think of themselves as bad people, so even unobserved they are usually good.

Empathy, though, is the really powerful forces, and also appears to be what is lacking in sociopaths and others who can only be constrained from wrong by force or threat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tech77

Whether you are atheist or christian your human morals should be the same (what is right and wrong). Its society that taints people to do wrong and society is tainted by bad governments and religious and non-religious beliefs (among a multitude of other things).

I live my life in a society being atheist and i only subscribe to my human morals of what is right and what is wrong and live my life as happy as i can. A christian (i hope ) does not do good so that he can get into heaven and is afraid of god, you should do good cause it is the right thing to do so people are happy. This is the same for an atheist.

Our emotions and feelings and all things that dictate our morality are developed through evolution so that humans could work better in societies for the greater good or advancement of the species. Humans nowadays are completely reliant on other humans to survive. This is the species we have evolved into and our morality plays a big part in its advancement.

Yeah i accept evolution confers "tools" like empathy so that we can live harmoniously in society but obviously society (whether 2 people or 6 billion) acts as the ultimate constraint and harnesses such empathy.
In other words:
Evolutionarily-endowed empathy->Don't do bad->No punishment->Live harmoniously->Survive->propogate genes for empathy etc etc.
Or does this sound too cynical.

But if you took society as just being 10 powerful human beings and 10 "useless" human beings (who contribute nothing) on a desert island:
Will empathy prevent the 10 strong neglecting (even killing) the 10 "useless" if the useless are a burden and the 10 strong have no consequences to fear from the 10 "useless".
Is empathy evolutionarily redundant in this situation?

In regards to euthanasia, if i see a human being that is in agony be it from a problem they are suffering from or something that will lower the standard of living for them for the rest of their life then i would feel it to be morally right to end that suffering. I would want this for myself. Others then might feel the opposite which is their moral decision on the situation. One thing that i feel to be wrong is that religious beliefs can cloud a persons idea of what is moral and what is not. If the church says euthanasia is wrong and basically makes a list of all things that are right and wrong then how is a person going to make a moral decision for themselves when it comes to very important things such as euthanasia.

Yeah i agree you would think euthanasia would be a decision reached by the patient and their family and not dictated by a church.

I'd have to disagree with that. It assumes that no-one develops personal ethics and morality apart from outside enforcement.

Personally, I think that it was when I started to recognise when acts of carelessness, neglect, mischief impacted on someone else and saw that they had been hurt, that I changed my behaviour just about immediately. Something which a upbringing of bible readings had failed to accomplish.

You could go on forever calculating the degrees of religion, society, family upbringing, genetics and brain chemistry are involved but seeing as other animals seem to display empathy also, it's unlikely to be 100% organised religion and I don't recall it being a conscious decision. "Felt" more like the brain freezing, backing up slowly and marking a bad pathway.

But as i said above doesn't evolution confers "tools" like empathy so that we can live harmoniously in society but obviously society (whether 2 people or 6 billion) acts as the ultimate constraint and harnesses such empathy.

In other words:
Evolutionarily-endowed empathy->Don't do bad->No punishment->Live harmoniously->Survive->propogate genes for empathy etc etc.
So what you're feeling is no more than societal stimuli availing of an evolutionary tool in you (empathy) and constraining your behaviour isn't it. Society still plays a part.

But in the desert island scenario does empathy become evolutionarily redundant (absurd even).
Will empathy be strong enough to prevent the 10 strong from neglecting the 10 weak.
Does something else have to be invoked to prevent this happening.
Again does this sound too cynical.

Fallen Seraph

tech77 wrote: »

The evolutionary process doesn't allow such a person to survive naturally, so what compels a society that is fully-informed about evolution to artificially support such a "useless" member if they only take from society and give nothing back.
Would supporting them be hypocritical (intellectually atleast).

Perhaps. But first you have to give the theory of evolution meaning above and beyond a simple explanation for the diversity of life.

I really don't think I've ever come across an atheist who thinks of evolution as anything other than this and, tbh, you really sound like you've gotten a lot of secular humanist philosophy from creationists. I couldn't give two hoots if evolution was categorically disproved tomorrow.* It's just a description of the physical world.

I think that this is a case of the is-ought fallacy. Just because the weak do die doesn't mean the weak should die.


*let us not forget that disproving evolution does not prove creationism.

Zillah

I stopped reading at the first paragraph...

You think morality is the fear of being punished? lol

tech77

Scofflaw wrote: »

That would be appear to be the real driving force behind human morality - empathy. In addition, most people don't wish to think of themselves as bad people, so even unobserved they are usually good.

Empathy, though, is the really powerful forces, and also appears to be what is lacking in sociopaths and others who can only be constrained from wrong by force or threat.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree that empathy is a basis for morality.
But where does empathy come from.
It's developed through evolution because we are social animals:
Empathy is selected as a trait because those who feared the consequences and therefore played by society's rules survived.

So:
Socialisation-> Fear of Consequences if you do wrong-> Development of empathy-> harmonious living ->Greater chance of survival and propagation-> Empathy becomes an evolutionary trait.

So isn't an evolutionary/atheistic morality developed through fear of consequences ultimately.

But if you apply this to a the scenario of a group of strong and a group of "weak and useless" i'm wondering if this empathy will be enough to prevent the strong neglecting the weak.
Is there a danger here that empathy for the "weak and useless" may even be weeded out as an evolutionary trait if such a scenario prospered and the strong propagated.

It would seem that morality is then very flexible and relative.
Is an evolutionary tool like empathy sufficient on its own to inform morality.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Perhaps. But first you have to give the theory of evolution meaning above and beyond a simple explanation for the diversity of life.

I really don't think I've ever come across an atheist who thinks of evolution as anything other than this and, tbh, you really sound like you've gotten a lot of secular humanist philosophy from creationists. I couldn't give two hoots if evolution was categorically disproved tomorrow.* It's just a description of the physical world.

Just as the Theory of Gravity does not tell us that we ought to drop things - it simply describes what will happen when we do.

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

I think that this is a case of the is-ought fallacy. Just because the weak do die doesn't mean the weak should die.

Indeed, the word "weak" should be dropped there, as well. In a fight between a rat and a tiger, I'd have no problem betting on the tiger - but the tiger is endangered, and the rat is not. Men are "weaker" than elephants, but elephants are not driving men out of their habitats.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

tech77 wrote: »

I agree that empathy is a basis for morality.
But where does empathy come from.
It's developed through evolution because we are social animals:
Empathy is selected as a trait because those who feared the consequences and therefore played by society's rules survived.

So:
Socialisation-> Fear of Consequences if you do wrong-> Development of empathy-> harmonious living ->Greater chance of survival and propagation-> Empathy becomes an evolutionary trait.

No. Those groups that developed the ability and urge to help each other - empathy and goodwill, if you like - survived better.

You cannot have a "fear of consequence if you do wrong" until you have a concept of "do wrong", which you cannot have without morality - therefore, morality cannot develop out of "fear of consequence if you do wrong".

You are arguing, circularly, that morality developed out of morality.

tech77 wrote: »

Is an evolutionary tool like empathy sufficient on its own to inform morality.

Evidently.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tech77

Zillah wrote: »

I stopped reading at the first paragraph...

You think morality is the fear of being punished? lol

What informs your morality.
Empathy, correct?

Where does empathy come from?
It's no more than an evolutionary tool to survive in society, correct?

Why was it selected do you think?
Because it informed you that you would avoid punishment and get on with others if you exercised it, correct?

So: Fear of being punished/killed-> Selecting for empathy-> Morality

Too cynical?

Scofflaw

tech77 wrote: »

What informs your morality.
Empathy, correct?

Where does empathy come from?
It's no more than an evolutionary tool to survive in society, correct?

Why was it selected do you think?
Because it informed you that you would avoid punishment and get on with others if you exercised it, correct?

So: Fear of being punished/killed-> Selecting for empathy-> Morality

Too cynical?

Too circular - see above.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

tech77 wrote: »

Too cynical?

2 + 2 = 5 would not be described as a "cynical" calculation.


Morality, as an evolutionary trait, helps an individual cooperate with other members of society for mutual benefit. To attempt to explain it in terms of punishment by authority is a laughable over-simplification.

pH

tech77 wrote: »

Well i suppose the evolutionary process is just what it is as you say and nothing more.
But take a truly "useless" member of society (i hate using that term).
The evolutionary process doesn't allow such a person to survive naturally, so what compels a society that is fully-informed about evolution to artificially support such a "useless" member if they only take from society and give nothing back.
Would supporting them be hypocritical (intellectually atleast).

So what if the evolutionary process doesn't allow that person survive naturally (whatever that means!)? We as humans intervene in many cases where someone couldn't survive naturally - disease for instance - and I couldn't survive naturally 200m below the sea does that mean I can't use a bathysphere or there is something immoral about using one?

You may as well argue that all medicine and technology is against natural processes that allow people to survive that shouldn't.

Evolution is a natural explanation of how life got here, not a set of morals or rules to live by. So whether the society if fully informed about evolution has nothing to do with it.

You seem to have quite a hard-on for the extermination of these weak "takers from society" - so let me tell you what compels a society to support these "useless" members - people like me who don't want to live in a society where the "useless" are gassed.

tech77

I think that this is a case of the is-ought fallacy. Just because the weak do die doesn't mean the weak should die.

Right.
So if naturally the weaker do die (and evolution tells us nothing about morality), what informs the morality to support them artificially.
And i wonder is it true in all cases that empathetic communities always do better (e.g even if empathy is shown towards those that are completely non-contributory)

*let us not forget that disproving evolution does not prove creationism.

Of course.

Scofflaw wrote: »

No. Those groups that developed the ability and urge to help each other - empathy and goodwill, if you like - survived better.

You cannot have a "fear of consequence if you do wrong" until you have a concept of "do wrong", which you cannot have without morality - therefore, morality cannot develop out of "fear of consequence if you do wrong".

You are arguing, circularly, that morality developed out of morality.

To take any circularity out of the argument I should have replaced "fear of consequences if you do wrong" with "fear of consequences of behaviour that would cause others to object and constrain that behaviour".

Morality, as an evolutionary trait, helps an individual cooperate with other members of society for mutual benefit. To attempt to explain it in terms of punishment by authority is a laughable over-simplification.

OK "avoiding punishment" isn't a great way of putting it.
Maybe "seeking reward" would be better:
So then morality, as you say, as "a tool to allow cooperation with other members of society" is pretty much this "seeking of reward" isn't it:
You be nice to me, I'll be nice to you and nobody gets punished/everyone gets rewarded->Morality flourishes.

A caveat to this however might be that this only really works when the two groups involved are of comparable might.
If one group though is far mightier than the other does this morality break down.
What informs the mightier group to then show compassion to the weaker one.

So what if the evolutionary process doesn't allow that person survive naturally (whatever that means!)? We as humans intervene in many cases where someone couldn't survive naturally - disease for instance - and I couldn't survive naturally 200m below the sea does that mean I can't use a bathysphere or there is something immoral about using one?

You may as well argue that all medicine and technology is against natural processes that allow people to survive that shouldn't.

Evolution is a natural explanation of how life got here, not a set of morals or rules to live by. So whether the society if fully informed about evolution has nothing to do with it.

Yes of course, I accept all that.
But what dictates the morality of who should benefit from such advancements.
What informs morality for example in the case of say that hypothetical scenario i mentioned in a previous post:
10 very strong and 10 non-contributory (irremediable) members of a hypothetical society living together on a desert island. Is empathy sufficiently strong to ensure the 10 strong do not neglect the 10 non-contributory members.

You seem to have quite a hard-on for the extermination of these weak "takers from society" - so let me tell you what compels a society to support these "useless" members - people like me who don't want to live in a society where the "useless" are gassed.

No, of course not.
"Useless" is in quotes for that reason.
I'm just playing devil's advocate and wanted to understand what informs atheistic morality that's all.
I take the point that the evolutionary process isn't a good place to look for morality and morality should be constructed independently of it.

But i'm just wondering if the world was an atheistic place would morality become more malleable and relative and would everyone be as absolutely good-natured as yourself.

Fallen Seraph

tech77 wrote: »

Right.
So if naturally the weaker do die (and evolution tells us nothing about morality), what informs the morality to support them artificially.

Empathy. We feel some measure of pain of those in need, and work to alleiviate our own pain.

To be philosophically rigorous I could argue a sort of more fundamental, intellectual empathy. By which I mean the recognition that there is no objectively quanifiable measure of the worth of a human, and as such the only reasonable manner in which to interact with other people is as if all people are equal.

Of course, you're also making the assumption that morality informs us to support others without any good reason. Many philosophies don't.


Also, it's all well and good if you can come up with an evolutionary psychology answer to why empathy exists, but lets not forget that it could just be an artefact of our evolved intelligence.

But i'm just wondering if the world was an atheistic place would morality become more malleable and relative and would everyone be as absolutely good-natured as yourself.

I imagine that it would be just as philosophically varied as it is at the moment, and that morality would be precisely what it is now.

Scofflaw

tech77 wrote: »

To take any circularity out of the argument I should have replaced "fear of consequences if you do wrong" with "fear of consequences of behaviour that would cause others to object and constrain that behaviour".

Same thing.

Say we have no empathy, or morality. I'm sitting in the cave one day, when you come in and murder Bill in a fit of pique and go out again. My likely reaction? It depends on how much of Bill's dinner is left. If there's enough, I might go over and eat Bill's dinner.

tech77 wrote: »

OK "avoiding punishment" isn't a great way of putting it.
Maybe "seeking reward" would be better:
So then morality, as you say, as "a tool to allow cooperation with other members of society" is pretty much this "seeking of reward" isn't it:
You be nice to me, I'll be nice to you and nobody gets punished/everyone gets rewarded->Morality flourishes.

I think you have something of a blind spot here. No-one is going to reward or punish anyone without there being morality already - so one cannot claim that morality evolved out of fear of punishment or desire for reward.

tech77 wrote: »

But i'm just wondering if the world was an atheistic place would morality become more malleable and relative and would everyone be as absolutely good-natured as yourself.

Almost certainly it would be exactly the same. After all, God already doesn't exist, so it becomes only a question of to what extent the myth of God changes behaviour.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

tech77 wrote: »

"Useless" is in quotes for that reason.
I'm just playing devil's advocate and wanted to understand what informs atheistic morality that's all.
I take the point that the evolutionary process isn't a good place to look for morality and morality should be constructed independently of it.

But i'm just wondering if the world was an atheistic place would morality become more malleable and relative and would everyone be as absolutely good-natured as yourself.

Excellent - as long as we agree that evolution, while it may be responsible for our human minds and our feelings of empathy, is not a good place to look for morality then progress can be made.

On to your hypothetical 10 and 10 question then - Why not just dispense/neglect the weaker 10?

There are 3 broad categories of things that would stop you :
1/ Fear of punishment/retribution
2/ Your own feelings/mind
3/ Some set of moral laws you have created for yourself (or you otherwise happen to believe in)

I happen to believe that 1 and 2 are by far the most important, and that 3 is pretty much of academic interest only.

By fear of punishment - this possibly could be how other members of the stronger 10 would react to your suggestion to neglect the weak, or also what would happen in future possible contact with society. If you're a theist you can add fear of some form of divine punishment a la 'hell' here, but for practical purposes it seems to make little difference.

By your own feelings I'm talking about things such as guilt - I know that if I wilfully allowed the weaker to die for my own survival it is entirely possible that feelings of guilt could haunt to rest of my life - I can't help this - it's the way my brain is wired - no amount of logical self justification could make it go away.

As to the third category, the golden rule etc. I'm very skeptical as to how many people solely find it the thing that dissuades them from evil or anti-social acts - "I know I'd get away with it, and I'd feel no remorse and would love to kill that man and steal his car except didn't I decide a couple of years ago to live my life by the golden rule - so I won't" - it just never happens imho.

Moro23

I would wager that a fear of a god or his retribution has never stopped a war ,or a single person been killed .

PDN

Moro23 wrote: »

I would wager that a fear of a god or his retribution has never stopped a war ,or a single person been killed .

How much do you want to wager?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I would wager that a fear of a god or his retribution has never stopped a war ,or a single person been killed

How much do you want to wager?

Whatever it was, make it double, because I'll bet against you as well.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tech77

OK haven't replied in a week but when you talk about empathy, isn't empathy just another selfish trait.
A mother protecting her young is probably the strongest example of empathy.
She's hardwired through evolution to do this.
But she only does this so they survive to carry on her genetics.
So ultimately it's a genetically selfish trait that seeks a reward (through genetic proxy albeit).
And arguably it is done at the cost of neglecting others genetically disparate to her.
So what i'm wondering is what are the limits of such evolutionarily-endowed empathy.

And whatever about the merits of the strong mother-child empathy example above, when you get down to the stranger-stranger situation, empathy becomes very much more diluted doesn't it.

When social constraints are removed all that moderates behaviour between two strangers is a morality based on whatever empathy they have for each other.
Is this always enough?

Again i'm wondering here is empathy on its own really this all-conquering, boundless benevolent trait that provides for absolutely everyone no matter how weak or disparate (genetically or otherwise) from the masses.

There's always seems to be a competitive, genetic-reward based aspect to empathy isn't there? Like any evolutionary trait i suppose.

Again i can't help feeling then that morality (based on empathy alone) then becomes a flexible, ever-changing construct. Whether that is a good thing or not is another issue.

Zillah

I think they're referring to the sort of empathy that is some what incidental to our status as sentient beings. We feel our own emotions and know what experiences such as sorrow or pain are. We also have the ability to recognise other human beings as being much like us. The net result is an appreciation for the suffering of others is.

It could be argued that such a trait exists separate to other evolutionary traits such a maternal concern.

Myksyk

tech77 wrote: »

There's always seems to be a competitive, genetic-reward based aspect to empathy isn't there? Like any evolutionary trait i suppose.

No. Unless you can explain what genetic advantage is gained when someone gives up their life (or carries out any self-sacrificing act) for another person unrelated to them.

The fact is you seem to be attributing all empathy to selfish gene factors. While this may explain empathy in other animals, humans' social evolution (and related developments like language, consciousness etc) mean that we are not led blindly on a genetic leash.

A simple example: one of the most basic and strongest genetic dictats is the urge to survive and yet this can be trumped shockingly easily by some simple psycho/social persuasion. In a matter of perhaps even hours we could conceivably convince a young man to become a suicide bomber ... what happened all those millions of years of evolutionary pressure and the instinct to survive? They were easily overturned by social and cultural factors.

Stephen Pinker gives another example. He says that one of the strongest genetic urges is the drive to reproduce (some would say this is the intrinsic 'meaning of life') ... and yet a mere couple of decades of individual development might mean a conscious decision to never have children. As he says, his genes might want him to procreate but they can go jump in the lake!

In the same way, genes may have something to say about social interaction but they don't have all the say, by any means. Humans may be hardwired in some directions but it is the 'softwiring', the ability to change and adapt to current environments, which may mean that the genetic hardwiring becomes almost irrelevant. So genes may be influencing our type, level and frequency of altruistic behaviour but nowhere near the extent that current psychological, social and cultural factors are. It is in the context of these factors that we may see genuinely unselfish behaviour.

Scofflaw

tech77 wrote: »

OK haven't replied in a week but when you talk about empathy, isn't empathy just another selfish trait.
A mother protecting her young is probably the strongest example of empathy.
She's hardwired through evolution to do this.
But she only does this so they survive to carry on her genetics.
So ultimately it's a genetically selfish trait that seeks a reward (through genetic proxy albeit).
And arguably it is done at the cost of neglecting others genetically disparate to her.
So what i'm wondering is what are the limits of such evolutionarily-endowed empathy.

And whatever about the merits of the strong mother-child empathy example above, when you get down to the stranger-stranger situation, empathy becomes very much more diluted doesn't it.

When social constraints are removed all that moderates behaviour between two strangers is a morality based on whatever empathy they have for each other.
Is this always enough?

Again i'm wondering here is empathy on its own really this all-conquering, boundless benevolent trait that provides for absolutely everyone no matter how weak or disparate (genetically or otherwise) from the masses.

There's always seems to be a competitive, genetic-reward based aspect to empathy isn't there? Like any evolutionary trait i suppose.

Again i can't help feeling then that morality (based on empathy alone) then becomes a flexible, ever-changing construct. Whether that is a good thing or not is another issue.

You appear to be confusing empathy with altruism. Altruism is debatable, empathy is mediated by known neurons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

tech77

No. Unless you can explain what genetic advantage is gained when someone gives up their life (or carries out any self-sacrificing act) for another person unrelated to them.

Yeah but this is (depressingly maybe), the exceptional case isn't it?
Your average man on the street isn't going to lay down his life for his fellow man.
I'm not sure TBH what the roots of such altruistic behaviour are.
If this stranger-stranger altruism is indeed purely evolutionarily-based that would be heartening and i'd be less cynical about human-nature.

The fact is you seem to be attributing all empathy to selfish gene factors. While this may explain empathy in other animals, humans' social evolution (and related developments like language, consciousness etc) mean that we are not led blindly on a genetic leash.

A simple example: one of the most basic and strongest genetic dictats is the urge to survive and yet this can be trumped shockingly easily by some simple psycho/social persuasion. In a matter of perhaps even hours we could conceivably convince a young man to become a suicide bomber ... what happened all those millions of years of evolutionary pressure and the instinct to survive? They were easily overturned by social and cultural factors.

Stephen Pinker gives another example. He says that one of the strongest genetic urges is the drive to reproduce (some would say this is the intrinsic 'meaning of life') ... and yet a mere couple of decades of individual development might mean a conscious decision to never have children. As he says, his genes might want him to procreate but they can go jump in the lake!

In the same way, genes may have something to say about social interaction but they don't have all the say, by any means. Humans may be hardwired in some directions but it is the 'softwiring', the ability to change and adapt to current environments, which may mean that the genetic hardwiring becomes almost irrelevant. So genes may be influencing our type, level and frequency of altruistic behaviour but nowhere near the extent that current psychological, social and cultural factors are. It is in the context of these factors that we may see genuinely unselfish behaviour.

Is that from the Blank Slate.
I gather you are saying altruism is influenced more by social/cultural factors than genetics/evolution.
That we aren't naturally altruistic but we can develop it through socialisation/education etc.
Are you saying the default state is empathetic to a degree but not altruistic.
This is what i'm worried about:
Altruism more than basic empathy is the thing that is needed to support everyone no matter how disparate/weak etc.
So if you're not born with altruism hardwired in your brain is the combination of atheism and basic empathy enough.
Do you need a spiritual bolstering of this (not organised religion but some sort of spirituality..)

Scofflaw wrote: »

You appear to be confusing empathy with altruism. Altruism is debatable, empathy is mediated by known neurons.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah of course empathy has been shown to be hardwired with mirror neurons etc but is it enough in an atheistic world.
Altruism (which i would think is exceptional rather than the norm) is arguably what is required to be absolutely supportive of everyone, no matter how weak.

Empathy is the ability to imagine the experience/suffering of others (a trait most people have).
Altruism is putting others' welfare before yours.
But altruism seems to be a trait that not everyone possesses.
And according to the other poster atleast, altruism is something that is learned rather than hardwired through evolution.

So in an atheistic/non-spiritual world is basic empathy enough?
Or is inculcating altruism an imperative (through spirituality rather than organised religion).

Scofflaw

tech77 wrote: »

Empathy is the ability to imagine the experience/suffering of others (a trait most people have).
Altruism is putting others' welfare before yours.
But altruism seems to be a trait that not everyone possesses.
And according to the other poster atleast, altruism is something that is learned rather than hardwired through evolution.

So in an atheistic/non-spiritual world is basic empathy enough?
Or is inculcating altruism an imperative (through spirituality rather than organised religion).

Hmm. This poses the question as if morality were something we could freely decide to have or not. That is not the case - all the evidence suggests that the majority of human beings are hard-wired with a sense of morality and fair play, as are the apes (and quite possibly many other animals). There are those that aren't - about 3-4% of people (psychopaths) - but the other 96% are moral. That means that they want to be good people, to do right, and avoid the wrong. They may be lazy about doing it, or confused as to what they should do, but they want to feel that they are good people, and it costs them a pang to do wrong.

Morality, for most of us, is not a choice. The reason that religions provide moral systems for their followers is not because we are intrinsically immoral and need to be brainwashed into being good, but because we are intrinsically moral, and wish to know what is good. The religious sanction of "God says this is right" is not a weapon to drive us to morality, but a "quality-mark" that says "system of morality approved by Supreme Being" - exactly like a diet endorsement by a leading doctor.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

Well said scofflaw.

As far as i am concerned, for humans to become truly altruistic society needs to show them the purpose to be that way and it is more of a realisation then a decision. Everyone has their "hardwired morals" but to be motivated to do good in a selfless way that will benefit society, the society needs to be worth benefiting if you know what i mean. So if the current society does not reflect values that lead to a person being altruistic then al you will get is a very confused bunch of people.

tech77

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. This poses the question as if morality were something we could freely decide to have or not. That is not the case - all the evidence suggests that the majority of human beings are hard-wired with a sense of morality and fair play, as are the apes (and quite possibly many other animals). There are those that aren't - about 3-4% of people (psychopaths) - but the other 96% are moral. That means that they want to be good people, to do right, and avoid the wrong. They may be lazy about doing it, or confused as to what they should do, but they want to feel that they are good people, and it costs them a pang to do wrong.

Morality, for most of us, is not a choice. The reason that religions provide moral systems for their followers is not because we are intrinsically immoral and need to be brainwashed into being good, but because we are intrinsically moral, and wish to know what is good. The religious sanction of "God says this is right" is not a weapon to drive us to morality, but a "quality-mark" that says "system of morality approved by Supreme Being" - exactly like a diet endorsement by a leading doctor.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OK.
But as an atheist in an atheistic world would you see a need for some sort of common morality-teaching for your kids (again not religion-based as clearly religion has too many flaws and causes as many problems as it purports to solve). Or would you find any moral authority (however agreeable) abhorrent?

Do you think raw relativistic and highly individualistic empathy-based morality suffices?
Do you think this is all that a person needs to guide them through life.
If not what would be the refining process of this morality.
I'm not making a point, i'm genuinely curious.

I'm just intrigued by this atheistic world where morality is relativistic and highly individual where everyone acts purely according to pangs of empathy alone.
Maybe it would work i dunno.

Or what about something like a Church of Atheism scenario which layed down a definite moral code (and which Atheists could attend) but importantly explicitly denied the existence of God.

Or maybe i've got Atheism's take on morality wrong.
It is relativistic/subjective and individual isn't it?