Evolution Brought About Morality ?

Originally posted by sonship

. Providing etiological explanation of the human moral faculty should not be confused with providing a meta-ethical account.

Just provide the etiological explanation of the human moral faculty by means of evolution. You said that it was the obvious alternative to the nature of God. If I am not quoting exactly, I am close enough.

So your origin of the moral faculty by means of Evolution you can talk about here.

Just provide the etiological explanation of the human moral faculty by means of evolution.

No.

First, you need to demonstrate that you even understand the notional distinction between such an account and a meta-ethical account (the distinction I already outlined in my previous post in this thread). We have already been here before, and I will not play the fool again simply because you are unable, or just too stubborn, to wrap your head around what should be a fairly straightforward distinction. In fact, here is a direct quote from Thread 157928 page 5, which explains what happened when we were at, more or less, this same exact juncture previously:

LemonJello to sonship:

“Gee, no kidding. Did you simply miss all the times where I stated that there is a difference between providing etiological explanation for the human moral sense; and providing some meta-ethical view that would serve to justify those sensibilities?

Let's recap what happened because it really is hilarious. You asked me to provide explanation for the origin of the human moral sense. I then even inserted a whole extended post asking for clarification because, as I explained, that is just an anthropologic question that provides descriptive explanation but would provide no meta-ethical accounting for how any of these sensibilities could be factual or justified, etc. I wanted clarification that this is actually what you were looking for. Even after reading that post of clarification, you said "Start there then" as if challenging me to give some descriptive explanation for the human moral sense. After all this, when I then go on to oblige you, you object that I am not providing the meta-ethical accounting. Hilarious! You know, I would still like to think that entering these discussions with you (and Freaky, too) is not a complete waste of my time. However, you surely can see now how I have some building evidence to the contrary. “

Now, if you are willing to show that you understand the distinction now, I will oblige you. What I would suggest is an exchange, like the one KJ and I are engaged in, stemming from the absurd escapism thread: you read the Joyce account; I read an account of your choosing. The Joyce account (chapters 1-4) provide exactly the sort of etiological explanation that you are looking for. Following that, we can engage in additional discussion regarding the merits (or lack thereof) of these accounts.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Neither of us could prove either side of that discussion, though I think showing how it
came together then started functioning would be a tall tale that a lot of faith would have to
be used. To be accepted as a plausible we would need to accept more than a small
number of "should haves", "could haves", "might of", "its possible that" on top accepting
everything else required just happen to be at the right place at the right time and on and
on.

Well, regarding the question of moral faculty, rather than the principles themselves, then our general ability to reason abstractly and generally allows the behaviour of reasoning about moral questions, so that we do it isn't a surprise. So I don't think that there's any particular additional explanation required for moral reasoning evolving that isn't there with reason anyway. So the question is the same as how mind could evolve. Ultimately, it seems to me, that either the mind is just a pattern within the brain, in which case you'd need a strong argument that it could not evolve, or there is something additional involved in mind. To justify a claim along the lines of: "God is necessary for mind.", one would have to show that something beyond the brain is needed for minds to exist or that even if the mind only requires the brain and nothing "non-physical" to function it cannot come about by itself as the barrier to constructing it is too big. There's scope for some progress with that. The former, that matter alone cannot explain mind, involves a meta-physical commitment to an additional object to make minds work and the latter, that it could not have evolved, seems to fall foul of the evidence.

T frOriginally posted by KellyJay
Yes that is like saying an abacus had a thought because logic was applied with it.

Consider this: Self-driving car designers are grappling with issues like the trolley dilemma, how should the system react when saving the driver and saving pedestrians are not both possible. You asked for an example of moral reasoning driven by chemical reactions and that undeniably meets the simple hurdle to get off the blocks. Now if you want to move the goalposts of your question I say that is you being afraid to move off the blocks to see where it goes. Just admit we have met the simple challenge of whether a chemical reaction can drive moral reasoning. of course the mashine does not know it is reasoning on what we consider to be moral premises.

And of course the programmers of the car's decision system may have limiting legal liability more in mind than moral considerations, but we have to get off the blocks to consider that.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, regarding the question of moral faculty, rather than the principles themselves, then our general ability to reason abstractly and generally allows the behaviour of reasoning about moral questions, so that we do it isn't a surprise. So I don't think that there's any particular additional explanation required for moral reasoning evolving that isn't ...[text shortened]... e minds work and the latter, that it could not have evolved, seems to fall foul of the evidence.

Simply because we have minds doesn't justify either creation or evolutionary process to
acquire one on its face.

The first "thought" the first time some notion was held and pondered was a result of what
some chemical reaction? If cause and effect brought it all into being what could that
thought be? I can have a radio trying to pick up AM freq. wouldn't all sound produced be
nothing but noise unless I grasped what it was I was listening too? It wouldn't be much
different for sight, the first time a light became real, what would mean, would it be just
noise to the mind, would it cause confusion over realization? How would we know?

It is easy to work backwards and say well have brains so....we have thoughts so... but
this 'so' really does invite questions that cannot be or shouldn't be glossed over. I'm not
sure what evidence you are referring too that can dismiss anything out of hand. If you are
a true believer I can see how somethings are thrown aside. If either of us ignore what
could be true that only shows how we can be predisposed to accept any notion for
validation of our beliefs no matter what the odds are against them.

Originally posted by JS357
Consider this: Self-driving car designers are grappling with issues like the trolley dilemma, how should the system react when saving the driver and saving pedestrians are not both possible. You asked for an example of moral reasoning driven by chemical reactions and that undeniably meets the simple hurdle to get off the blocks. Now if you want to move the goa ...[text shortened]... lity more in mind than moral considerations, but we have to get off the blocks to consider that.

Self driving cars are no different than your CPU, we design them and program them to do
what we want. There isn't a self aware being in your computer or your car when you look
at the processor. Computers are fast adding machines, they can do amazing things with 1
and 0 when we add, compare, and so on. Running a program isn't thought within the
computer, we are simply setting up the computer to act as we want it too.

An old saying when I was first learning about them was computers never do what we want
only what we tell them.

If they didn't they would not be useful, you cannot have complex math being done wrong
at a bank because the computer feels like making 1+1=3 today. Neither would they be
useful if they did anything other than what we programmed them to do in cars either. Just
think what a sudden stop in the middle of an busy highway could cause, death and pain.

May as well say water running down a hill side is thought you are simply replacing
one current with another.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Simply because we have minds doesn't justify either creation or evolutionary process to
acquire one on its face.

The first "thought" the first time some notion was held and pondered was a result of what
some chemical reaction? If cause and effect brought it all into being what could that
thought be? I can have a radio trying to pick up AM freq. wouldn ...[text shortened]... ed to accept any notion for
validation of our beliefs no matter what the odds are against them.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The point I was making is that if one were to make a claim along the lines of: "God is necessary for mind" then one would be committed to at least one of mind not being a function of the brain alone or that nothing so complex a thing as a brain could have evolved on its own, so that God is necessary for mind to produce the genetic machinery to build one.

There is a fossil trail for the brain and the simplest interpretation is that the brain evolved. So an argument relying on the difficulty of the brain evolving strikes me as vulnerable to extant evidence.

The more interesting argument is the one where mind is a function of more than just brain. I think that this position commits its adherents to an extra metaphysical object that makes the mind work as a mind. Suppose someone were missing this, or it's a computer running a brain simulation, would the personality be passably human to a casual observer, but nevertheless a philosophical zombie? Can we identify this additional meta-physical object with the soul?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Self driving cars are no different than your CPU, we design them and program them to do
what we want. There isn't a self aware being in your computer or your car when you look
at the processor. Computers are fast adding machines, they can do amazing things with 1
and 0 when we add, compare, and so on. Running a program isn't thought within the
computer, ...[text shortened]... ay water running down a hill side is thought you are simply replacing
one current with another.

But you are adding the condition of self awareness to the condition of reasoning on moral principles. That's moving the goal posts which is fine IFF you at least admit that a chemically powered system can reason upon moral principles, I will readily agree that these systems do not know they are reasoning, or are reasoning on moral principles. We will then gotten closer to understanding what keeps us from the gap between belief that biological evolution can or cannot arrive at system you would call a moral system. But maybe the question of evolution bringing about moral systems is not central, if there is a major gap ahead on moral absolutes.

Originally posted by JS357
But you are adding the condition of self awareness to the condition of reasoning on moral principles. That's moving the goal posts which is fine IFF you at least admit that a chemically powered system can reason upon moral principles, I will readily agree that these systems do not know they are reasoning, or are reasoning on moral principles. We will then gott ...[text shortened]... n bringing about moral systems is not central, if there is a major gap ahead on moral absolutes.

I've admit our minds can, but nothing man made has reached that level. All we have done is
create great if, then, else tools.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The point I was making is that if one were to make a claim along the lines of: "God is necessary for mind" then one would be committed to at least one of mind not being a function of the brain alone or that nothing so complex a thing as a brain could have evolved on its own, so that God is necessary for mind to produ ...[text shortened]... ess a philosophical zombie? Can we identify this additional meta-physical object with the soul?

For all we know and I doubt will ever prove on our own that we do require a spirit, soul,
and mind to run around in this universe as a man. Even our computers with all the proper
hardware will not operate correctly without proper software.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've admit our minds can, but nothing man made has reached that level. All we have done is
create great if, then, else tools.

garbage in...

Originally posted by JS357
garbage in...

true

Originally posted by KellyJay
true

Whether the premises are correct matters not to whether the analysis is rational.

Pigs can fly
Ari is a pig
So Ari can fly

Originally posted by sonship

Morality is not a physical, tangible thing; it's an idea.

I agree.

As humans evolved, their ability to reason also evolved.

The mutation of genes gave rise for reasoning to emerge?
The further mutation of genes caused reasoning to become more and more acute, able to handle more difficult abstractions?

Look ...[text shortened]... here. Blind Watchmaker "Survival of the Fittest" Evolution produced that kind of a moral mind?

Whether evolution happened via unguided process or with some deliberate action from some sort of intelligence, it doesn't change that evolution happened, and has been witnessed, documented, tested and even used by humans for the benefit of society (breeding livestock, the science of genomics, etc.).

What has also been witnessed, is the evolution of humanity's ideas. Humans went from believing the world existed on the back of a giant turtle, to believing the world was the center of the universe, to knowing it's just one of countless world's in a vast, ever-expanding void.

Morality has similarly evolved. Mankind invented religion to explain the world and legitimize morality, and has more and more come to the conclusion that religion is not only unnecessary to legitimize morality, but most likely false.

Even Christians went from believing every word of the bible, to believing much of it isn't meant to be literal. Christians continually reject more and more of the bible; the parts that call for the murder of gays, the parts that call for the stoning of women, the parts that condone slavery...even Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery. Certain foods that were "unclean" were eventually no longer a sin to eat...the list goes on. That shows even the bible evolved in it's morality.

To summarize, evolution is all around, including the evolution of morality.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've admit our minds can, but nothing man made has reached that level. All we have done is
create great if, then, else tools.

And your work is all cut out for you to demonstrate that the human brain is anything more than an if, then, else machine. All indications so far suggest it is solely an if, then, else machine and can theoretically be modelled using standard computers, albeit much faster ones than we have today.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And your work is all cut out for you to demonstrate that the human brain is anything more than an if, then, else machine. All indications so far suggest it is solely an if, then, else machine and can theoretically be modelled using standard computers, albeit much faster ones than we have today.

And a computer is a prime example of something that was designed right?