And Petter does it again folks!!
You're getting a +rep for the last couple of posts!

By the way, you were right about my earlier st Paul/Martin Luther comment. My Bad!

Merck- Pay attention to Letum and Virus, you may learn something! :profe:

Morality is a social convention. What might be moral in one society at a particular point in time many time is immoral in another. Why do I follow the current social morality? How about jail sucks.
.

I kind of have to disagree with this line of thinking. While it is true that some concepts of morality change over time, there are similarities between the moral laws and standards of most cultures. For example, in some cultures, it's okay to have three wives and two concubines. In some cultures, it can be four wives, a concubine, and a temple prostitute. And some cultures uphold monogamy. However, everybody agrees you shouldn't just have any woman you want.
Cultures differ on whether you should be unselfish to just your own family, just those living nearby you, just those who have the same skin color as you...but everybody agrees you shouldn't just put yourself first.
There has never been a concept of morality where, for example, soldiers are praised for running from battle, or where it has been considered a badge of distinction to turn on those who were generous to you. It just hasn't existed.
Examing the codes of law of the Greeks and Romans, ancient Chinese, Sumerian tribes, etc., one is struck by how many things they have in common.

Petter answered this very well, I just have a few specifics I would like to address.


So, then, you have no problem with murdering someone to get what you want, or raping someone, so long as you are not caught? And it is not inherently wrong, say, for someone to steal from you, only personally offensive?

Morality is conditional.
Do you as an individual have the right to protect yourself and try to stay alive?
Does a group of people have the right to protect themselves from someone who is the carrier of an incurable disease which is nearly 100% fatal?
What if you are the carrier of that disease? Do you still have the right to save yourself even at the expense of the larger group?



you seem to be under the impression that I am opposed to science, or, that I even addressed it directly in my post. I am not opposed to science, but I am opposed to poor research, and the adoption of theories as "capital T truth"

Coincidentally, with your statement about said "Truth," do you beleive that there are any absolutes, of truth or otherwise?

No, I don’t think you are opposed to science, I think you don’t understand it, which is what I said the first time. As for absolutes, there are physical absolutes, such as absolute 0 degrees in temperature or the speed of light for example. However I don’t believer there are any moral or philosophical absolutes other than some people believe they absolutely have the answers for everyone, end of story.

I kind of have to disagree with this line of thinking. While it is true that some concepts of morality change over time, there are similarities between the moral laws and standards of most cultures.
But some things may just make for bad societies, that are unlikely to become popular or thrive. For instance, a society where it's considered appropriate to murder everyone who looks at you without the proper squint is soon going to run out of members. By contrast, a society that operates on the rule of "Be nice to strangers, especially people you meet often, but if someone betrays you, refuse to help him again" will encourage co-operation and punish betrayal, and grow more cohesive and functional as a result.


For example, in some cultures, it's okay to have three wives and two concubines. In some cultures, it can be four wives, a concubine, and a temple prostitute. And some cultures uphold monogamy. However, everybody agrees you shouldn't just have any woman you want.
This could be so deeply ingrained as to be motivated by a biological drive for jealousy -- if I 'allow' other men to have sex with 'my' woman, my reproductive success is threatened. Biologically, is is in the interest of any man to have sex with as many women as possible -- but to prevent other men from having sex with the same, especially the ones he deems the best mates. A culture may well strike a balance.


Cultures differ on whether you should be unselfish to just your own family, just those living nearby you, just those who have the same skin color as you...but everybody agrees you shouldn't just put yourself first.
And a culture that did would collapse, because unilaterally putting yourself first is not the same thing as arranging things maximally in your favour -- unbridled selfishness discourages co-operation. (To take a Dawkinsian view, this is why we have bodies in the first place, never mind gregarious societies: Genes are 'selfish' in that they operate strictly 'for' their own propagation -- but because this propagation is aided by co-operation, these same genes gang together and synthesise proteins to create edifices as great and remarkable as cats, humans, parrots, elephants, and blue whales.)


There has never been a concept of morality where, for example, soldiers are praised for running from battle, or where it has been considered a badge of distinction to turn on those who were generous to you. It just hasn't existed.
Once again, could it? The first would be crushed in any military conflict. The latter -- well, no one would be generous to you, knowing that most likely it would be to their disadvantage. Co-operation would be minimised.


Examing the codes of law of the Greeks and Romans, ancient Chinese, Sumerian tribes, etc., one is struck by how many things they have in common.
And of course they operate on the same basic rules -- the laws of physics, similar environments, the exact same evolutionary and biological background, inherent drives and urges, and so forth.

Well I'm mildly pissed. I had written out a long post but lost it when I accidentally closed my browser when cleaning my desk off. Pardon my lack of being verbose, and mostly citing others, I'm not feeling quite as enthusiastic as when I originally wrote.

Firstly, the idea of "The big bang is a theory" is a good thing, but only if you understand what theory means in the context of science. Theory isn't absolute fact, but it is a collection of hypotheses which answer questions in a broad scope and have a significant body of evidence to support it. The big bang is a theory, which is why I trust it.

I'm being lazy, so here's a post I made before on the subject of existence and the universe, followed by an article on the subject.

"I'm really awful with the language of the subject, but I'll try. I aim to keep this short because I have a feeling I might've bungled this up.

There is the famous question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" which is to say, why is there anything at all. The initial feeling is that nothing is in some way easier than something, therefore it should be the default. The concept of nothing might be easier to understand, though I believe the idea of nothing cannot be fully understood simply because we as people have never encountered it.

We falsely assume that the idea of "nothing" is even possible. We have no evidence of such, nor can we. The moment there is something, "nothing" no longer exists."

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/skeptic13-2_Kuhn.pdf

Petter has already started going on about the golden rule, but I'll add to that there is a good evolutionary reason why morality would come into being. Empathy is an immensely powerful learning tool, and the golden rule is founded on empathy. Those who did not have the ability to empathize could not learn as much, therefore did not survive. See this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elEYKpo7kFk

As for the intrinsic value of life, see this post of mine which I think is too long to copy/paste:
http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1617220#post1617220

It is my opinion that assuming one's life has a purpose beyond that which is imposed by yourself and those around you is arrogant. Read up on some existentialism if you care to explore this idea further. There are plenty of atheist existentialists. In short and (too) simple: There is no divinity or meaning in the universe except that which we can create for ourselves.

I have some things to do today, otherwise I might keep at it, but I'll be keeping my eye on this one.

But what is a Theory? :O

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOdEzBL1lic

The LAW of gravity. It's the LAW of gravity!

I always believed that theory was "This seems to fit the facts, so we're going to go with it unless we come up with something that disproves it." It's something that has more validity than a mere hypothesis, which is a wacky guess thrown out into the void. To become a theory, a hypothesis must be supported by the results of some experiements (by which I mean scientifically testing a hypothesis) and then it secretes a silky cocoon around itself and goes dormant, and if the President doesn't veto it, it becomes a theory. I think.

The LAW of gravity. It's the LAW of gravity!

I always believed that theory was "This seems to fit the facts, so we're going to go with it unless we come up with something that disproves it." It's something that has more validity than a mere hypothesis, which is a wacky guess thrown out into the void. To become a theory, a hypothesis must be supported by the results of some experiements (by which I mean scientifically testing a hypothesis) and then it secretes a silky cocoon around itself and goes dormant, and if the President doesn't veto it, it becomes a theory. I think.

Arg, this is frustrating. I have a very solid understanding of what the term theory means in scientific context, but I can't seem to put it into words. Maybe this will help, in regards to evolution (though not on trial here).


C
live Thompson wants us to simply redefine the "theory of evolution" as the "law of evolution". This is possibly one of the worst ideas I've heard yet for overcoming the problem of the colloquial definition of theory. It is not correct. The theory of evolution is a whole collection of ideas describing complex phenomena; it is not reducible to the kind of clear and simple mathematical description we associate with scientific laws. When somebody asks me what the ideal gas law is, I can say PV=nRT; when someone asks me what the law describing the gravitational attraction between two bodies is, I say Gm1m2/R2; when they say, "OK, smartie pants, what is the law of evolution?", what am I supposed to do? Recite Hardy-Weinberg at them (which, by the way, is called a law already, but is not the sum of all of evolution by any means)?

It's a bad idea that sets us up for more confusion and will play right into creationist hands. Why not go all the way and just call it the "Truth of Evolution"? It's the same strategy — it's all avoiding the issue by an attempt at redefinition, and mangling the idea in the process.

I hope that makes it slightly more clear. A theory can be a very in depth highly supported hypothesis. It is the law of gravity, but it is also the theory of gravitation, which has a lot more to say about a lot more things.

Ok, in reply:

Petter, good point about the dolphins. On the subject of morality as a cultural version of reciprocal altruism, how did it develop? Was it an evolutionary function, and, if so, why do free-thinking beings who realize it continue to operate by it, rather than taking all they can get? Personally, I beleive that a moral law requires a moral law giver, but I'm curious as to your answer here. Regarding a priori knowledge, an innate sense of perfection, inconceivable if perfection does not, in fact, exist (similar to Aquinas' (maybe...) ontological argument for the existence of God). I personally do not beleive that the universe is eternal, and thus must have had an origin in something outside of itself. Regarding Necessity and Dependance, you (for example) because of your parents' reproduction, as to they because of their parents, etc. back into history...you depend on something else for your existance. How far back does the cycle go? Regarding my "is a theory" statement, I didn't mean to imply that it was "just" a theory, but, it is also untestable. There's no reproducible experimental results. My statement was to higlight the fact that M1K3 had it as a presupposition in his argument, arguing as if it were accepted, proven fact. Regarding a creator, I happen to posit an omnipotent uncaused case as the source of all that exists. Equally experimentally unverifiable, but it answers the question without contravening physics. Oh, and I have no problem with scientific theories, as long as it is without blind faith in unproven ideas.....

Vince - you are dead on about there being some moral conventions that are present in all societies...some would call these moral absolutes, or a moral law.....

M1K3 - you said morality is conditional, and a societal factor (so I'm guessing that what is "right" is determined by cultures, not individuals) - so how do you explain moral reformers, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.? After all, he went against what the majority of society said was moral and right....Also, you stated that you believe that there are no philisophical or moral absolutes - that belief is a belief in a philisophical absolute, i.e., that there is nothing absolute.

Gypsy Jazz - more arrogant than believing we can create any purpose for ourselves that is more significant than self-delusion (believing we matter when we don't)?

OK, my daughter is screaming (she got 3 shots today, and is very unhappy) so more later, guys...sorry!

On the subject of morality as a cultural version of reciprocal altruism, how did it develop?
We know that reciprocal altruism (and kin altruism, etc.), with imperfect perception criteria (consider cuckoos fooling host birds), is a very, very common thing in animals that, as far as we know, do not have sufficiently high intelligence to develop culture in any meaningful way. These are evolutionarily good things -- they help increase inclusive fitness.

It seems very likely that we are evolved from such creatures. Once we evolved the capacity for culture, then, that culture could be either neutral with respect to these issues, or it could affirm it, or it could negate it. However, for any given culture, negating things that are good for the 'propagation of the species' (inaccurate but close enough to communicate) will be detrimental. Cultures that decrease 'fitness' will be harmful, and penalised by selection, in exactly the same way as genes with the same function.


Was it an evolutionary function, and, if so, why do free-thinking beings who realize it continue to operate by it, rather than taking all they can get? Personally, I beleive that a moral law requires a moral law giver, but I'm curious as to your answer here.
Sex drive is an 'evolutionary function'. Fear of injury and death, too, and hunger, and thirst... We do not resist these things. Our genes pressure us to do things, but they do so very indirectly indeed -- protein synthesis to organ construction to pain and pleasure reactions to given stimuli. Evolution could very well construct us in such a fashion that we simply enjoy social interaction, friendliness, and co-operation. From personal experience, it rather seems that it is so.

But even quite divorced -- now -- from evolution, the cultural imperatives remain the same. If you're a selfish arse, people will dislike and penalise you for it.


Regarding a priori knowledge, an innate sense of perfection, inconceivable if perfection does not, in fact, exist (similar to Aquinas' (maybe...) ontological argument for the existence of God).
I'm not familiar with the argument, nor am I aware of some inexplicable "innate sense of perfection", but I can imagine many things that do not actually exist -- this is what imagination is all about.


I personally do not beleive that the universe is eternal, and thus must have had an origin in something outside of itself.
The same arguments can be equally applied to any deity you posit, except that you simply declare that "My god is eternal". How is this any more convincing than "My universe is eternal"? You've only posited an extra entity -- for which there is no evidence.


Regarding Necessity and Dependance, you (for example) because of your parents' reproduction, as to they because of their parents, etc. back into history...you depend on something else for your existance.
You are talking about two different things: Existence and organisation. I 'exist' in the form that I am in -- a male human, etc. -- for the reasons you mention. It does not therefore follow that the elemental particles that I consist of require the same type of reasoning. Given a set of elemental particles, which exist for some unknown reason ("But we're working on it..."), we have explanations for how they came to be organised into people. Organisation is a sequence of events; events require causes. The existence of 'something' rather than 'nothing' only involves an event if we posit that there ever was a state of 'nothing' existing. I'm not aware of evidence that it was so.


Regarding my "is a theory" statement, I didn't mean to imply that it was "just" a theory, but, it is also untestable. There's no reproducible experimental results.
The Big Bang theory has produced tons of testable predictions. Here's a starter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence).


Regarding a creator, I happen to posit an omnipotent uncaused case as the source of all that exists. Equally experimentally unverifiable
Where's your evidence, then? What falsifiable predictions has the 'God hypothesis' generated -- and passed?


but it answers the question without contravening physics.
It doesn't answer the question. It evades it. Your answer is only an apparent answer because it is so vague -- no mechanism, no predictable consequences...


Gypsy Jazz - more arrogant than believing we can create any purpose for ourselves that is more significant than self-delusion (believing we matter when we don't)?
What does that even mean -- "believing we matter when we don't"? 'Mattering' is a product of conscious minds; a matter not of fact but of opinion. Something may matter to me that doesn't matter to you; it's purely subjective. I matter -- to me (and to various other people).

Ok, in reply:

Petter, good point about the dolphins. On the subject of morality as a cultural version of reciprocal altruism, how did it develop? Was it an evolutionary function, and, if so, why do free-thinking beings who realize it continue to operate by it, rather than taking all they can get? Personally, I beleive that a moral law requires a moral law giver, but I'm curious as to your answer here. Regarding a priori knowledge, an innate sense of perfection, inconceivable if perfection does not, in fact, exist (similar to Aquinas' (maybe...) ontological argument for the existence of God). I personally do not beleive that the universe is eternal, and thus must have had an origin in something outside of itself. Regarding Necessity and Dependance, you (for example) because of your parents' reproduction, as to they because of their parents, etc. back into history...you depend on something else for your existance. How far back does the cycle go? Regarding my "is a theory" statement, I didn't mean to imply that it was "just" a theory, but, it is also untestable. There's no reproducible experimental results. My statement was to higlight the fact that M1K3 had it as a presupposition in his argument, arguing as if it were accepted, proven fact. Regarding a creator, I happen to posit an omnipotent uncaused case as the source of all that exists. Equally experimentally unverifiable, but it answers the question without contravening physics. Oh, and I have no problem with scientific theories, as long as it is without blind faith in unproven ideas.....

Vince - you are dead on about there being some moral conventions that are present in all societies...some would call these moral absolutes, or a moral law.....

M1K3 - you said morality is conditional, and a societal factor (so I'm guessing that what is "right" is determined by cultures, not individuals) - so how do you explain moral reformers, such as Martin Luther King, Jr.? After all, he went against what the majority of society said was moral and right....Also, you stated that you believe that there are no philisophical or moral absolutes - that belief is a belief in a philisophical absolute, i.e., that there is nothing absolute.

Gypsy Jazz - more arrogant than believing we can create any purpose for ourselves that is more significant than self-delusion (believing we matter when we don't)?

OK, my daughter is screaming (she got 3 shots today, and is very unhappy) so more later, guys...sorry!

I'm back from my errands and waiting for dinner, so I feel like answering questions!

I think that little video I posted does a fairly decent job explaining the biological and evolutionary foundations of morality by way of empathy. It briefly touches how such a trait would be preferred by sexual selection. The first half is more dismissing theistic morality which is well and good, but the second half is the far more interesting part.

Why should we abide by such rules even if they are recongnizable as nothing more than an evolutionary need? Well for one they make sense. I treat others well because that's how I wish to be treated. I donate to charities where I will never meet those who I help, but I can imagine myself in a situation where I need help (to a limited extent) and I can recognize that I would want aid from the able. It is a rational code of ethics. Science is a matter of "is" and not "ought" though in this case it might transcend that barrier. It is reasonable, rational, and effective as the cornerstone of society for us to adhere to the golden rule.

Petter almost certainly will elaborate and hopefully in terms of ESS's and such as he is so good at doing. It doesn't hurt that he is secretly an explanitory logic-bot programmed by Richard Dawkins. "The Selfish Gene" has an awful lot on this subject, and is an overall good read if you're so inclined.

A quick note on the big bang theory is that it is not quite testable in the way that you can test a cancer treatment, but it has some substantial empirical evidence. I am pretty uneducated on this topic since my brain shuts down when I encounter math, but to name a few: There's the dopler effect of light what with blue/red shifts going on to observe the universe is expanding. There is also the COBE mission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COBE which I honestly haven't sat down to understand enough to be comfortable explaining it.

I'm not sure which I'd call more arrogant. In one you think you're special because you have some purpose, whereas in the other you think have purpose and therefore are special. I said that my summary was too simple as existential thought goes, but I had to run.

Any reasonable existentialist realizes their own limitations. Among Camus (who I'm most comfortable talking about) he makes quite clear that one should keep in mind how unimportant you are and how fleeting your existence is so that you can embrace every moment of life as it is. The struggle of trying to create meaning where there is none is the inherent battle against the absurd.

In short, I don't think it's arrogant to think you have control over your own desires, hopes and dreams. That is something that I don't think I'd find much argument over. Your field of influence is extremely limited, but we still can control the things that define ourselves and therefore in our limited power create some form of subjective meaning for ourselves where there is objectively none.

I seem to have bad timing today. Dinner. I'd be glad to try to and explain more later. Of course in terms of biology Petter has me trumped, physics Poop Loops has me beat, and DAYoung I am nowhere close to in philosophy. Maybe they'll make exciting cameos!

To Belardur (Berador?)

Why did "god" choose the particular set of moral codes that he did? Why did he decree that murder, rape and theft are wrong?

Where did god get his moral code from?

To Belardur (Berador?)

Why did "god" choose the particular set of moral codes that he did? Why did he decree that murder, rape and theft are wrong?

Where did god get his moral code from?
I believe that there is an objective truth, and that right and wrong are a part of that objective truth. I believe god is our way of connecting our subjective takes on the objective reality, to the objective reality itself.

but thats just me.




or if you want to be obnoxious that you can say that gods will is good.

unfortunately theres an easy counterargument to said statement that looks like
gods will = good

so effectively

gods will = gods will

You didn't answer the question.

Why did god choose this particular moral code rather than another one?

.

It's really stupid to talk about "god's will" when there is no such thing as a god.

I believe that there is an objective truth, and that right and wrong are a part of that objective truth. I believe god is our way of connecting our subjective takes on the objective reality, to the objective reality itself.
In other words, there is an objective reality separate from your god, which is merely a way of accessing it; in other words, right and wrong exist separately, and we can conceivably see them for ourselves. If so, then we don't need this god. The alternative is, of course, to say that good is defined by this god's will, which means that it's pure caprice.

Both views are supported by the Christian Bible (as is so often the case) -- Genesis presents the first view ("the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" -- before banning humans from the garden of Eden lest they live forever, and we can't have that), but the Bible goes on to assert that whatever this 'LORD God' commands is a good thing, whether it be loving your neighbour, sacrificing your son, or dashing the heads of the infant children of your enemies on the rocks.

Either way -- where's the evidence, and where are the tests?