Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
"Dawkins claimed that our morals and shifts in the moral zeitgeist came from..."
Wrong! He spoke only of the progressive shift in morality... Not morals themselves...
Furthermore, he prefaced that statement with "I don't know what causes it... I've got ideas..." and then listed a couple of examples of our social and political discourse.
How you could spend nearly 40 mins arguing such an obvious strawman is beyond me.
I wouldn't normally comment - but I've just wasted 40 mins watching it...
I thank you for your mercy then (and for watching to the end)...
I had already anticipated that objection internally myself, but no, I'm quite sure it does not hold. To be sure I went back to the Dawkins talk and have now even transcribed it in the description box.
It may be true that Dawkins seems to put an emphasis on the progressive *shifts* in morality, not on "morals themselves". But still whether he is talking about the moral standard itself or about the shifts of it... (tbc)
... even in the latter case (i.e., he talks about the shifting only) the result is a new kind of moral standard, isn't it? This change or shift makes people act differently, so it causes a new moral standard in them. And in the quote I gave (I have omitted nothing) Dawkins explicitly says that at least the shifting (if not the moral standard itself) is worked by dinner party conversations, editorials, legal decisions, and congressional votes.
And even if you say that maybe morality or some new standard is in some aristocratic sense justified at a "higher" level (with factual reasons, psychological or egological etc. arguments, behavioral simulations, theorizing etc.) and then the well-founded new standard is only forwarded or spread through the means Dawkins suggests, I still have my doubts that a (new) moral standard could even be *spread* by these means -- effectively and really changing people's behavior.
I would still claim that if you need some factual (contra Hume...) or evolutionary basis for morals (which I believe) even the *shifting* of morals comes from the entities Dawkins suggests only in the sense in which we get our milk from the supermarket or the electricity from the socket.
Example for the case that a factual basis for morality is valid: some human being, a newspaper editor, say, discovers how some type of human behavior is linked to some emotional consequences or how human damage can be reduced etc. and writes about it. People then act differently because of the editor's discovery.
Sure, in a very primitive way, the editor worked the shift of moral standard. But the shift is really worked through people seeing the complexities the editor discovered.
Saying that the shift is "caused" (Dawkins talks about causation!) by the editor would be the same as saying that Einstein caused the relativity of simultaneity of time.
Maybe the main point I am making is that, by making these claims, Dawkins seems too much to be reverting to the view that authorities or people (simply by claiming or ordering something) can provide the ultimate ground for others to adopt a certain behavior -- a view we know from religious worldviews.
also, I wonder how you arrive at your claim that you wasted *40* minutes watching the video, since the sum I calculated for all four parts is hardly 37 minutes, but your duration may be due to connection speed or youtube problems.
My brother always complains about their slow connection, too.
to clarify: the most uncontroversial examples are:
a natural action is killing or beating a person,
a conventional action is making a promise..
but, to me, the interesting thing is that, albeit in a very weak sense maybe even totally excluding sexual reproduction, even social conventions and norms obey evolutionary principles, e.g. the group, club, or team acting in such and such a way and different from anouther group etc. will be better off than the other in the end...
yes, maybe there is a difference between so-called "natural" actions and "conventional" actions... (the bias against naturalism annoys me here...) also recall hume's delicate or somewhat ironical/cynical comparison of the "practice" (i.e., a conventional action) of promise and transsubstantiation in the catholic eucharist ;)... we don't really know how an uttered sentence may oblige someone to do sth... LOL
but still my arguments were meant to be applied to morals in general...
I have not read the transcript from Dawkins, bust based on your description I agree that he is probably wrong.
Very interesting thoughts.
I would think that the term morals is too broad to properly nail down. There are the kinds of morals that through empathy and projection we can understand very quickly. Then there are morals that seem to be derived from some social constructs. Those moral do seem to need some time and evolution to really take hold. Those morals do seem more transitory.
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
"Dawkins claimed that our morals and shifts in the moral zeitgeist came from..."
Wrong! He spoke only of the progressive shift in morality... Not morals themselves...
Furthermore, he prefaced that statement with "I don't know what causes it... I've got ideas..." and then listed a couple of examples of our social and political discourse.
How you could spend nearly 40 mins arguing such an obvious strawman is beyond me.
I wouldn't normally comment - but I've just wasted 40 mins watching it...
PsychedelikMonk 2 years ago
I thank you for your mercy then (and for watching to the end)...
I had already anticipated that objection internally myself, but no, I'm quite sure it does not hold. To be sure I went back to the Dawkins talk and have now even transcribed it in the description box.
It may be true that Dawkins seems to put an emphasis on the progressive *shifts* in morality, not on "morals themselves". But still whether he is talking about the moral standard itself or about the shifts of it... (tbc)
Jackies1979 2 years ago
... even in the latter case (i.e., he talks about the shifting only) the result is a new kind of moral standard, isn't it? This change or shift makes people act differently, so it causes a new moral standard in them. And in the quote I gave (I have omitted nothing) Dawkins explicitly says that at least the shifting (if not the moral standard itself) is worked by dinner party conversations, editorials, legal decisions, and congressional votes.
Jackies1979 2 years ago
And even if you say that maybe morality or some new standard is in some aristocratic sense justified at a "higher" level (with factual reasons, psychological or egological etc. arguments, behavioral simulations, theorizing etc.) and then the well-founded new standard is only forwarded or spread through the means Dawkins suggests, I still have my doubts that a (new) moral standard could even be *spread* by these means -- effectively and really changing people's behavior.
Jackies1979 2 years ago
I would still claim that if you need some factual (contra Hume...) or evolutionary basis for morals (which I believe) even the *shifting* of morals comes from the entities Dawkins suggests only in the sense in which we get our milk from the supermarket or the electricity from the socket.
Jackies1979 2 years ago
Example for the case that a factual basis for morality is valid: some human being, a newspaper editor, say, discovers how some type of human behavior is linked to some emotional consequences or how human damage can be reduced etc. and writes about it. People then act differently because of the editor's discovery.
Sure, in a very primitive way, the editor worked the shift of moral standard. But the shift is really worked through people seeing the complexities the editor discovered.
Jackies1979 2 years ago
Saying that the shift is "caused" (Dawkins talks about causation!) by the editor would be the same as saying that Einstein caused the relativity of simultaneity of time.
Maybe the main point I am making is that, by making these claims, Dawkins seems too much to be reverting to the view that authorities or people (simply by claiming or ordering something) can provide the ultimate ground for others to adopt a certain behavior -- a view we know from religious worldviews.
Jackies1979 2 years ago
also, I wonder how you arrive at your claim that you wasted *40* minutes watching the video, since the sum I calculated for all four parts is hardly 37 minutes, but your duration may be due to connection speed or youtube problems.
My brother always complains about their slow connection, too.
Jackies1979 2 years ago
and in this last point, I guess, Dawkins would very much agree, having invented the term "meme"...
Jackies1979 2 years ago
to clarify: the most uncontroversial examples are:
a natural action is killing or beating a person,
a conventional action is making a promise..
but, to me, the interesting thing is that, albeit in a very weak sense maybe even totally excluding sexual reproduction, even social conventions and norms obey evolutionary principles, e.g. the group, club, or team acting in such and such a way and different from anouther group etc. will be better off than the other in the end...
Jackies1979 2 years ago
yes, maybe there is a difference between so-called "natural" actions and "conventional" actions... (the bias against naturalism annoys me here...) also recall hume's delicate or somewhat ironical/cynical comparison of the "practice" (i.e., a conventional action) of promise and transsubstantiation in the catholic eucharist ;)... we don't really know how an uttered sentence may oblige someone to do sth... LOL
but still my arguments were meant to be applied to morals in general...
Jackies1979 2 years ago
I have not read the transcript from Dawkins, bust based on your description I agree that he is probably wrong.
Very interesting thoughts.
I would think that the term morals is too broad to properly nail down. There are the kinds of morals that through empathy and projection we can understand very quickly. Then there are morals that seem to be derived from some social constructs. Those moral do seem to need some time and evolution to really take hold. Those morals do seem more transitory.
adamahan 2 years ago