It needs only one sentence to say that we are not bees.That clarifies a lot. :-S
Whose morality? LLThe Morality section reports on current progress in understanding the origins and function of moral behaviors as 1) motivated by our 'moral' biology such as that underlying our emotions such as empathy, loyalty, shame, guilt, and indignation and 2) advocated by past and present enforced cultural moral codes. Much of that work is described in the literature as the being on the evolutionary origins and function of cooperation and altruism. This work is concerned with what moral behaviors 'are', not what they 'ought' to be. While this science has implications for philosophical moralities, such as the best 'means' for achieving Utilitarian goals, it, like the rest of science, is silent regarding what our goals 'ought' to be., including our goals for enforcing moral codes (the main point of philosophical morality). If that is not what you were asking, you might clarify your question. I asked the question mostly out of frustration. Everyone has his own idea of what morality is and ought to be and will usually be blind to someone else's definition of it. Wherever our morality comes from people seem to think theirs is the only true one. For the record, in my opinion, we develop our morality from living among other people, and it's driven by our genes, environmenent and experience (as all of our thoughts and decisions are). Some people attribute morality to religion, insisting that's where morality resides and that it is somehow separate from us as individuals. It looks as if you and I are on the same page.
A what, Tim? What does all that mean?1) Agreeing that human morality is not ONLY a factor of its biological reproduction advantages 2) Reinforcing the point that cultures have other methods (other than promoting biologically reproductive advantages) for sustaining themselves and thriving 3) But pointing out that cultures can ALSO establish morals that promote their sustenance thru promoting biological reproductive advantages 4) AND pointing out that our development of cultures and morals ALWAYS take place within the context of our biologically evolved propensities
It needs only one sentence to say that we are not bees.You're assuming that bees don't have morals. I don't think we know whether that is the case or not.
Whose morality? LLThe Morality section reports on current progress in understanding the origins and function of moral behaviors as 1) motivated by our 'moral' biology such as that underlying our emotions such as empathy, loyalty, shame, guilt, and indignation and 2) advocated by past and present enforced cultural moral codes. Much of that work is described in the literature as the being on the evolutionary origins and function of cooperation and altruism. This work is concerned with what moral behaviors 'are', not what they 'ought' to be. While this science has implications for philosophical moralities, such as the best 'means' for achieving Utilitarian goals, it, like the rest of science, is silent regarding what our goals 'ought' to be., including our goals for enforcing moral codes (the main point of philosophical morality). If that is not what you were asking, you might clarify your question. I asked the question mostly out of frustration. Everyone has his own idea of what morality is and ought to be and will usually be blind to someone else's definition of it. Wherever our morality comes from people seem to think theirs is the only true one. For the record, in my opinion, we develop our morality from living among other people, and it's driven by our genes, environmenent and experience (as all of our thoughts and decisions are). Some people attribute morality to religion, insisting that's where morality resides and that it is somehow separate from us as individuals. It looks as if you and I are on the same page. Cool. We (at the Morality section on the evolution website) are interested in engaging with people who "Have some frustration" with the inadequate (dare I say pathetic?) state of moral philosophy in terms of providing a coherent, useful, secular morality. Science may silent regarding what the ultimate ends of morality 'ought' to be, but it is gangbusters powerful in what moral 'means' are to achieve goals such as increased well-being for all people.
We (at the Morality section on the evolution website) are interested in engaging with people who "Have some frustration" with the inadequate (dare I say pathetic?) state of moral philosophy in terms of providing a coherent, useful, secular morality.I don't see that moral philosophy is in such a devastated state as you describe here. Can you please explain? Are you sure your expectations of moral philosophy are not too high?
It needs only one sentence to say that we are not bees.You're assuming that bees don't have morals. I don't think we know whether that is the case or not. I am not assuming anything. Bees have very different reproduction system from us and a "childless" bee is not the same thing as childless human. Let's not forget that evolution is about genes and bees simply have their own way of getting their genes into the next generation. I am tired of these bees/bonobos analogies.
We (at the Morality section on the evolution website) are interested in engaging with people who "Have some frustration" with the inadequate (dare I say pathetic?) state of moral philosophy in terms of providing a coherent, useful, secular morality.I don't see that moral philosophy is in such a devastated state as you describe here. Can you please explain? Are you sure your expectations of moral philosophy are not too high? I see the present state of moral philosophy as inadequate to the task of providing a coherent, useful, secular morality in the sense that moral philosophy provides no generally agreed on coherent, useful, secular morality. This is after a few thousand years of very smart people attempting to do that. In contrast, a descriptive science of morality can, I argue, provide a more universal, fundamental grounding for a secular morality than any grounding used in traditional moral philosophy. For example, mainstream moral philosophy (except perhaps for Kantianism) is, at bottom, grounded in either or both 1) our 'considered' moral intuitions about extreme applications of proposed moral theories and 2) ideas about what is 'good'. Science can provide a more fundamental grounding for moral theories because science can tell us WHY our moral intuitions are what they are and why we consider some things good and some bad. I agree moral philosophy is not in "a devastated state". There has been tremendous progress, made by people much smarter than I could ever hope to be, for a long time. The problem as I see it is that moral philosophy has been valiantly trying to determine what morality 'ought' to be when no one, until the last 30 years or so, understood what morality 'is'. Science is now getting ready to definitively tell us what morality 'is'. I expect moral philosophy to then make rapid progress in coming to a wider consensus on what morality 'ought' to be (a topic on which science is necessarily silent).
It needs only one sentence to say that we are not bees.You're assuming that bees don't have morals. I don't think we know whether that is the case or not. I am not assuming anything. Bees have very different reproduction system from us and a "childless" bee is not the same thing as childless human. Let's not forget that evolution is about genes and bees simply have their own way of getting their genes into the next generation. I am tired of these bees/bonobos analogies. In the matter of the evolution (biologically and otherwise) of morals in whatever species, I think that the development of complex verbal behavior is a more critical factor than the particular manner of reproduction. That being said, I think that a reproductive system that involves a period of time in which the newborn are cared for (and cannot survive without) caregivers, is a key element in a species being a "social" species. This is because social species are more likely to develop verbal behavior. And verbal behavior requires a listener.
Lately I can’t make any sense of your posts, Tim.
Lately I can't make any sense of your posts, Tim.That's too bad. If you have (a) specific question/s, I would be glad to try to clear up any confusion.
This is after a few thousand years of very smart people attempting to do that.That right there should explain everything. In the context of my philosophy, we could stop right there.
In contrast, a descriptive science of morality can, I argue, provide a more universal, fundamental grounding for a secular morality than any grounding used in traditional moral philosophy. For example, mainstream moral philosophy (except perhaps for Kantianism) is, at bottom, grounded in either or both 1) our 'considered' moral intuitions about extreme applications of proposed moral theories and 2) ideas about what is 'good'. Science can provide a more fundamental grounding for moral theories because science can tell us WHY our moral intuitions are what they are and why we consider some things good and some bad.What can be improved? What will the breakthroughs look like? Mandatory euthanasia at age 65? That could be argued to be moral. Utter true Communism...the real stuff as it was theorized? That could be argued to be moral. Actually any real look at the SCIENTIFIC overlay of morals cannot be complete without the complete acceptance of humanity's behavioral tendencies for dog eat dog. The other probably overarching "moral"(moral is italicized because it is subjective in this instance) is that humans(like other social creatures mainly) gravitate to a leader, or leader system. The leader system dictates the morals. These morals are generally based on genetic/behavioral morals but are given room to bend.(as we are all aware).
There has been tremendous progress, made by people much smarter than I could ever hope to be, for a long time. The problem as I see it is that moral philosophy has been valiantly trying to determine what morality 'ought' to be when no one, until the last 30 years or so, understood what morality 'is'. Science is now getting ready to definitively tell us what morality 'is'. I expect moral philosophy to then make rapid progress in coming to a wider consensus on what morality 'ought' to be (a topic on which science is necessarily silent).What Morality "ought" to be? What can science, or yogis, or religion, or philosophy make progress on? Isn't the idea of..."It's wrong to kill, hurt, steal, lie." enough? We can't even manage these principles. What is this "movement" aiming for? For starters you'll definitely have to create and run the "leader system". Good luck with that.
I really think you expect too much from moral philosophy, Mark. Science has ‘grounding’ in observations and experiments, morality has ‘grounding’ in the ongoing ethical discourse of society. Moral philosophy can clarify, point at discrepancies, but the ‘grounding’ is done by the people themselves, by reflecting on the values behind our actions, individually and politically. Moral philosophy can help in this reflecting.
Any ‘grounding’ in something else is trying to abolish what makes us truly human: this ability to reflect about our actions and the reasons behind it. Life is insecure, and trying to remove this by a ‘grounded morality’ would exactly destroy our moral capabilities. I see a ‘Brave New World’ glooming behind your ideas.
It seems to me that you try to find a replacement for the ethical hole that traditional religions left behind, that were supposed to give moral guidance.
What can be improved? What will the breakthroughs look like? Mandatory euthanasia at age 65? That could be argued to be moral.From evolutionary perspective that seems very rational, yes. People that have no offspring anymore, on average achieve less, yes, that would be a good idea. Or is there some mistake in VYAZMA's proposal? Mark? George? In what way does our insight in the evolutionary background of morals helps us to decide this issue?
As far as I understand TimB, he is saying that many people think it is more important that their culture and societies will continue to exist, than that they produce their own personal offspring.
What can be improved? What will the breakthroughs look like? Mandatory euthanasia at age 65? That could be argued to be moral.From evolutionary perspective that seems very rational, yes. People that have no offspring anymore, on average achieve less, yes, that would be a good idea. Or is there some mistake in VYAZMA's proposal? Mark? George? In what way does our insight in the evolutionary background of morals helps us to decide this issue? It wasn't really a proposal GdB. It was more of an illustration. You hopefully knew this. I just want to be clear that I am not a proponent for most form of eugenics.
It wasn't really a proposal GdB. It was more of an illustration. You hopefully knew this. I just want to be clear that I am not a proponent for most form of eugenics.Of course. But I think it is a nice example to see if a moral theory fits our intuitions. From evolutionary perspective your idea seems correct. So I wonder what adding a evolutionary perspective to our moral deliberations would bring. I hope Mark and George will give their answers. Corrected: typo
I have nothing to add here, GdB. I commented on Mark’s post because I thought it was interesting, but I can’t make any sense of what the rest of you are talking about here.
POSSIBLE CONFUSION ALERT!
VYAZMA and Gdb
In moral philosophy, it is easy to say one thing and have it be interpreted as something else entirely. As I can attest by personal experience, this is particularly likely for any sentence that includes both of the words “science” and “morality”.
Sentences that contain the words “science” and “morality” are generally about one of three topics. If it is not clear which topic is being discussed, these statements can be confusing.
The first possible topic is “The morality of evolution”, which is the source of a bizarro claim, based on bad science and worse moral philosophy, that the process of evolution itself somehow defines what is moral. From this illogical, terrible idea came justifications for eugenics and all other ideas related to any form of “whatever increases reproductive fitness is moral” or some such nonsense. I know of no one who advocates this moral garbage.
The second possible topic is “The science of morality” which is simply the scientific study of the origins and function of our ‘moral’ biology and cultural moral norms. This is the main topic of the new science of Morality section. There are no necessary implications about what moral codes ‘ought’ to be in this science. At best, it can just tell us what morality ‘is’.
In my personal view, this science shows that moral behaviors are motivated by biology and advocated by cultural moral norms that are adaptations for increasing the benefits of cooperation in groups by means of costly cooperation strategies (cooperation strategies that leave the actor open to exploitation). Again in my personal view, this science about what morality ‘is’ is consistent with something like “Moral behaviors are costly cooperation strategies that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups”. The science of the matter shows that morality is a ‘means’ for increasing the benefits of cooperation, which sometimes may reduce reproductive fitness - for example by advocating fidelity in marriage.
The third possible topic is “Morality from science” which attempts to combine what science tells us about moral ‘means’ (based on what morality ‘is’) with what moral philosophy tells us about moral ‘ends’ (which science is silent on as a matter of logic). This topic may be inappropriate for the new Morality section since it is more about moral philosophy than science. But again in my personal view, I can argue for a form of what in moral philosophy is called a “Rule Utilitarianism” morality which I can state as “Moral behaviors are unselfish acts that increase the well-being benefits of cooperation.” This Rule Utilitarianism also implies that behaviors that decrease the well-being benefits of cooperation are immoral and behaviors that increase the well-being benefits of cooperation but are not in some sense costly (such as exposing the actor to exploitation) are morally neutral.
See, nothing about eugenics at all, except to point out that it has no justification in science.
The first possible topic is "The morality of evolution", which is the source of a bizarro claim, based on bad science and worse moral philosophy, that the process of evolution itself somehow defines what is moral. From this illogical, terrible idea came justifications for eugenics and all other ideas related to any form of "whatever increases reproductive fitness is moral" or some such nonsense. I know of no one who advocates this moral garbage.Yes, let's excise the word evolution if you will. I think it fits in the category of the "science of morals anyways". So it is superfluous overlap. And let's keep it simple and try to stay on one track at a time. Not just you. Me and any other participants.
The second possible topic is "The science of morality" which is simply the scientific study of the origins and function of our 'moral' biology and cultural moral norms. This is the main topic of the new science of Morality section. There are no necessary implications about what moral codes 'ought' to be in this science. At best, it can just tell us what morality 'is'.Right. The "ought" comes back to the behavioral social "matrix" of a given time and space. In other words culture/government. That's the leader system I mentioned. Humans instinctively form hierarchies and look above, look up to get guidance on moral codes and to especially reinforce innate moral codes. When the morals get out of whack too much the leader system fails and is replaced. An example would be revolution due to disparity of wealth. Or too heavy a reliance on the people for military conscription. Or too much crime. Too much corruption. No Science will ever be able to say what "ought" to be moral. Humans instinctively know what is moral already. They want to see it reflected in their social structure. Obviously...if we were not social creatures there would be no morals. So again, it only takes this innate behavioral "reflection" or reinforcement of morals "advocated" through the social hierarchy.
In my personal view, this science shows that moral behaviors are motivated by biology and advocated by cultural moral norms that are adaptations for increasing the benefits of cooperation in groups by means of costly cooperation strategies (cooperation strategies that leave the actor open to exploitation). Again in my personal view, this science about what morality 'is' is consistent with something like "Moral behaviors are costly cooperation strategies that increase the benefits of cooperation in groups". The science of the matter shows that morality is a 'means' for increasing the benefits of cooperation, which sometimes may reduce reproductive fitness - for example by advocating fidelity in marriage.Ahhh...you used the word "Costly". And also: "leaves the actor open to exploitation". Are you thinking science can find a way to eliminate the cost? To eliminate the exploitation?