Has this guy even tried to read up on the evolutionary accounts of morality out there? Does he know anything about group selection rather than individual selection? If not, why does he spout this nonsense?
And even if evolution couldn't explain it, how could it possibly indicate an afterlife? The reason to do what's right is that it's right, not to be rewarded for it. Now THAT's personal selfishness. This guy seems to confuse his own position with the one he's attacking.
I like your message, but the Materialist view is just called morality is an evolutionary trait that helped us as a species move ahead or something like that.
@SERSOVI study some history of science before you assume simply because many scientists do not believe in the immaterial, it does not exist. It is true, materialistic science is our current paradigm. But a paradigm, as highlighted by Thomas Kuhn, can be wrong. The paradigm highly affects school textbooks, and claims such as yours come with no surprise. It is only natural that since we never hear in documentaries, scientific journals, of immaterialistic theories, we should assume they dont exist.
@setnoset Sure, you are right about the paradigmas, but the thing is that it keeps "being valid" as long as its predictions are acurate. The current materialistic paradigma can easily explain such things as morality, duty, good and evil. And even more, it es explainable though the evolution theory.
@OpenAirAtheist that is if you assume that a thing has to be material, then your conclusion is obivously valid. but all you said is that if we assume materialism, we imply materialism.
@setnoset Are you aware of anthing other than matter and energy? If so what is it? Not its function or character. Its ontology, its substance. Until you answer you havent made a claim I can honesty accept or reject.
one could argue that man simply has not the need but developed the adoptation for civilization and its mediating morales governed through the ages for control, and would develp much more strongly and healthily in a purely natural/ green friendly evironment where natural selection takes charge. where i beleive transcendentiality takes roll is the development of a mind complex enough for such transendential thoughts. we owe abtract reasoning to the hypo/thalamus in our brains but the physical...
@420dankykush ..presence of such devices consisting in our minds to know that in fact: we do not know what happens when we die and: we function harmoniously obeying the laws of the physical properties we can all amazingly comprehend. so theres a deffinite unanswered question in mortality we all have to ask ourselves because there is no way to prove it: are the impulses driven by complete phyisical and realistic positism to the universe and area of time we make the decision to do right or wrong
Maybe we should just face the truth? That we do what is right in spite of the threat to our own being; our sense of morality also evolving as we mature and learn more about the world we are living in.
We have torespect each other. If not, there would be a chaos of violence and murder. The religious people have to respect the materilistic people and vicecersa. We can co exist, but not with stupidity of religon but whisdon of tolerance.
Anothe disquisition: The "Bible idiots"say the world was created in only the six days the old testament says. dint you know there was dinosours? Didnt you know there were a very long and varieted team of different eras in the history odf our planet that clearly demonstrate the creationism is not true?
One last argue; where was god when his predilected people, the judes were massively assesinated by the Nazis in WWII? He aniquilated egyptians when prosecutong the hebrew in the ancient testament, he aniquilarted sodoma and gomorra, etc... But... and... when the WWII? This is a clear demonstration of the non existence of god.
The materialism is not an argue and no more, my respected reflect 7. Materialism is substaced and argumented by genious of the humanity such as: Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx and others. Yes, you, the north american people have the inmediate tendence to confuse materilism with socilism or communism. It is no so. In the other side: the theory of complexity, the intelligent design, and other theoriessearching "gods"have been demonstrated as only intensions of religious sects and no more.
Dude, religious hierarchy fits perfectly into evolution and materialism. When your present actions or more so the actions of a be fruitful and multiply zionazi mammon religion me me me world, you and your own little invisible god world, you are already extinct with or with out dog spelled backwards. SEASON = Spiritual Evolution and Scientific Naturalism we can all go eternal together though a collective cooperative effort no alpha Moses dude god necessary. Unified Field Theory!
@TranshumanCyborg A great book to start with, although it doesn't specifically tackle materialism and the human brain, is "On Human Nature" by EO Wilson. I chose that over "Astonishing Hypothesis" by Francis Crick, because it is a lot less dry and not a lot of pages in it. But if you are serious in exploring the materialist position read "Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are" by Joseph LeDoux. Wilson's book is holistic while LeDoux is specific.
@TranshumanCyborg You really do need to read literature in Neuroscience. You will find that a lot of behaviors are the result of the brain's activities. A lot of the human brain has been map of what it does. This includes language, vision, planning, and behavioral movements. But humans can still choose despite this deterministic proposition. Free will is just really, when you boil it down, choice that is different from all other animals.
Ahh, so much assumptions in a 4 minute vid. A student of neuroscience would be the first to say that actions are determined by the materialistic brain. As for that transcendent value of morality, that's the same with numbers, but there is no absolute teacher that will give anyone an F if you get the math wrong.
As for his comment on moral thought as evidence for an after-life doesn't even connect. It's like saying we have hands so after life we can climb a ladder to heaven.
@TypicalEnglish Sorry, I thought I did reply... My question was how, when, and why did we go from a survival-based species to a cooperative social-based species? Matter-acting-on-matter evolution doesn't account for this rational/conscious shift to community/protecting the weak/altruism/love/equality/minority rights... At a slight level, selfish cooperation can be explained by evolutionary theory, but it's not even close to the level we support/promote as humans today.
My answer is that we never did leave the survival-based species route, but adapted to inherit cooperative social based acustoms as well. If it had no correlation with survival, then we would remain isolated individuals similar to how Orangutans live. If someone kills someone else, we are enraged, dissappointed, is it morals? I believe it is a retaliation to sustain order necessary to survive. Morals came after cooperation. (running out of letters haha)
Moral psychology does not require a supernatural explanation. There is plenty of research being done to explain our moral psychology. Even if you assume that not always acting in your own self interest is irrational, that just shows that people are irrational, which is nothing new. Isn't acting based on reward or punishment in the afterlife just another form of self interest?
He is wrong. it is not "how I'LL get the prey" or "how I'LL get ahead"... we are a social species, it benefits our whole existence to cooperate. This is shown in the Prisonners Dilemma.
@reflect7 Yes it does, as long as you understand what evolution actually is. "survival of the fittest", but do you know what the "fittest" means? It does NOT mean who is the strongest, fastest, etc. It means who is most able to adapt to changing conditions. Also, evolution works on populations, NOT individuals.
So you're whole premise is based on a strawman version of evolutionary theory.
@reflect7 sure it does. The point of natural selection is to make our species more adapted to the environment. It helps us as a species to collaborate and help one an other in society, it makes us more productive. That being said my morals don't come from anything metaphysical, they come from the fact that i realize that everyone is equal. Im not better or worse then anyone so it doesn't make sense to treat people unfairly.
"we are a social species, it benefits our whole existence to cooperate"
yeah, but it benefits the survival of our whole species. altruism is a thing you can reflect even on animals, especially mammals. its even more important that the whole species survives, than yourself.
this doesnt change the fact that its all about survival.
Morality is simply what society has agreed upon as right and wrong. That doesn’t mean they were instilled in us by a divine being. They were developed over time by our species to keep our world in order.
You have to consider that everyone's perception of right and wrong can be different. It all depends on what we are taught. When we experience something the chemical reactions of our brain create an emotion that tell us either that feels good or that feels bad. This very thing happens when we are young, certain things are discourage or encouraged by some authority figure, and we learn to do the ones that get us encouragement rather than discouragement. We aren't born with morals.
none of this matters. we dont exist anyway. we know nothing and never will. All this man is doing is comparing opposing theories. Everything he talks about is based on inventions of the human mind. And when one accepts that the human mind is not the end of the spectrum, one realizes nothing is as it seems.
(2/2) Morality in essence is dependant upon cultural upbringing. Moral decision making is not an absolute process that must proceed in a predetermined method. It's a conflict in evaluating between possible consequences for oneself and others. Based upon principles, gained by personal realisation or cultural bias, people decide what is right and wrong in a particular case. But this decision can be overturned if the situation is altered or if the principles are reformed.
when you say people decide what is right or wrong, its not really right or wrong is it? Since people are deciding what it is, right and wrong are probably not the right words. "Preferable" is probably apt. Are you advocating relativism or moral nihilism?
When you rewind evolutionary history and get to the early humans who applied moral principles, the first culture, where did they learn their morals from?
Experience in combination with hard-wired principles (i.e. basal brain functions that aren't taught but are innate).
An evolutionary process would develop the basic principle that prevents an individual from harming (stealing, killing, lying) others if these others are likely to be encountered again (relatives, family etc.). This principle is beneficial for the survival of the specified individual.
If an individual lives with a population whom he frequently engages violently, he is less likely to gather larger amounts of resources that enable him to proliferate and reproduce, passing on the innate behaviour. The affected population that does engage in tit for tat behaviour and basic innate principles is more likely to survive in reproduce.
In this way, innate behaviour is passed on to the next generations. Cognitive biases take part at the onset of culture.
Very well put. What you have just done is give a description of morality, but isn't morality prescriptive? How do the socio-biological pressures account for intention and motive which are elemental in morality? How does biology inform me on how i should act tomorrow? What i 'ought' or 'ought' not to do.
Quite simple: it doesn't inform or advise, it merely describes the mechanism. The natural science of biology isn't a philosophical study that can be used to make moral decisions. Conscious decision making is far more complex and unpredictable than the brain structures that facilitate it.
Morality is indeed prescriptive, but it one's moral principles are not bound to any objective standard. It's rather more subjective and subtle, depending on situation, consequence and actors.
Biological evolutionary explanations can inform that you 'ought' not kill, steal from or lie to any familiar individuals of your population or species to increase reproductive succes. Consequences of doing such may be detrimental to yourself.
As for other kinds of moral decision making (ethical dilemma's and such), it's like I said more philosophy than quantifiable science. It varies from individual to individual, depending on your principles, opinions and cultural upbringing.
How can lying stealing or killing familiar individuals be detrimental to myself? If i dont get caught, could i still do those things? I dont see why not.
Everything is centered around the survival of the group. Why should one care about the group, why care about reproducing? The law of the jungle seems to be the only truth, might is right.
This is a common misconceptions about evolution. The group is not important: it's the individual and his genes that matters. If an individual relies on others to provide resources and safety from predators, than it's beneficial to not kill or harm that group.
Lying, stealing or killing familiar individuals may lead to an impediment in those resources and safety provision. E.g.: If an individual kills all the members in the group, no one can provide and protect him, nor reproduce with him.
Stealing resources will lead to an uneven division of those resources, impeding other members of the group to surive, and impede them in providing and protecting the individual as well as offspring to mate with.
Lying can lead to a decline in the reliability of information: mistrust. Communication in a group is paramount for operating together to provide, to protect and again to mate.
Every sentient organism has urges to mate with his own species. It all comes down to self-replicating DNA.
As for the law of the jungle "might is right". Power is useless if an individual is alone and can't reproduce. Bacteria are among the most powerless organisms on the planet, yet they are absolutely succesful in living in almost environment (even in the guts of humans).
Power, strength and might are worth nothing if you're sterile and therefore can't reproduce. Features and methods to increase reproductive succes are what is really important.
all your responses which are meant to explain morality depend on some prior moral notion to hold together. The best one can do is explain past bahaviour. It cannot account for motive and intent which are both non-physical elements and cant even in principle evolve an evolutionary sense. If the moral element is prior to the behaviour then it cant be the behaviour itself.
Motive and intent are features of behaviour, which in turn is caused by activating neurological pathways, which in turn are laid down according to genetic information: genes.
Genes are physical, genes can and do evolve. A change in genes or gene expression can and does lead to different behaviour and thus difference in motive and intent. (See increased serotonin receptor expression in mice leading to increased aggression.)
How is that a difference in motive and intent? Its just a difference in behaviour. Motive and intent are immaterial entities, one cannot get the immaterial from the material. Its not amenable to science.
Motive and intent are virtual concepts, seen or attributed to physical reactions but do not exist in physical form. Just like the concept of migration is attributed to a moving population of individuals, or talking that is attributed to the movement of a tongue in combination with alternating soounds and tones.
Migration and talking are immaterial entities, but they are caused and produced by physical interactions. Same thing for behaviour, motive and intent.
For as long as there is a moving population there is migration. I would agree on that. But behaviour and motive are not in line. if a scientist looks at ones behaviour and then knows ones motive and intent for that same behavioural pattern in the future, is just completely false.
"Oh it was an accident" "I didn't mean that, what i meant was..."
motive and intent are very real and at times are opposite to behaviour. To explain it through the scientific method is kind of a category mistake.
Also this has all exemplified a fallacy in logic called the genetic fallacy which is faulting an idea just because of where it comes from. Just because you can give something an evolutionary lineage doesn't mean its false. If that is supposed to undermine morals being objective just because it has a history, then you could say the same for scientific theorising, if consistent then you cant even hold evolutionary theory to be true. So its self-refuting.
I'm not sure I understand what your intentions are in this post.
If you think I'm using evolutionary theory to disproof objective morality, then you've misunderstood me. I started to elaborate morality according to evolutionary psychology to answer your question of "How does biology inform me on how i should act tomorrow?" to which I replied that it only informs that you 'ought' to increase your odds of reproductive succes, nothing more. Other kinds of morality are cultural, not biological.
(1/2) Your explanation of morality by darwinian philosophy is grossly oversimplified. Survival is important, yes, but only if an organism is capable of reproduction. Altruism can benefit reproductive succes in the sense of sharing resources.
Furthermore, moral "absolutes" are not adhered universally. Killing and lying is condoned in some cultures. Western society frown upon it, and because the moral bias in our society is shared by a huge population, we tend to think of it being an absolute.
You have NO idea what you're talking about. In the is ought gap problem, the "is" is how things are, and the "ought" is what one should do. You can only bridge the gap with goals and needs.
Has this guy even tried to read up on the evolutionary accounts of morality out there? Does he know anything about group selection rather than individual selection? If not, why does he spout this nonsense?
And even if evolution couldn't explain it, how could it possibly indicate an afterlife? The reason to do what's right is that it's right, not to be rewarded for it. Now THAT's personal selfishness. This guy seems to confuse his own position with the one he's attacking.
frabjous79 3 weeks ago
*facepalm* biology is not moral philosophy...
StygianDysnomia 3 weeks ago
So far ten seconds in and this guy is full of fucking shit...not watching anymore.
Killer0fTheSun 3 weeks ago
I like your message, but the Materialist view is just called morality is an evolutionary trait that helped us as a species move ahead or something like that.
14sJakeB190 3 weeks ago
Study some science befoe you speak from "oughts".
SERSOVI 1 month ago
@SERSOVI study some history of science before you assume simply because many scientists do not believe in the immaterial, it does not exist. It is true, materialistic science is our current paradigm. But a paradigm, as highlighted by Thomas Kuhn, can be wrong. The paradigm highly affects school textbooks, and claims such as yours come with no surprise. It is only natural that since we never hear in documentaries, scientific journals, of immaterialistic theories, we should assume they dont exist.
setnoset 3 weeks ago
@setnoset Sure, you are right about the paradigmas, but the thing is that it keeps "being valid" as long as its predictions are acurate. The current materialistic paradigma can easily explain such things as morality, duty, good and evil. And even more, it es explainable though the evolution theory.
SERSOVI 3 weeks ago
@SERSOVI hmm.. it can easily explain such things as morality, duty, good and evil. That is a big claim... tell me more.
setnoset 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You can really see the the spunion craziness swimming behind this guys beady eyes....
odinata 4 months ago
Immaterial is a lack of something not a something. It's like the word nothing.
OpenAirAtheist 4 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist that is if you assume that a thing has to be material, then your conclusion is obivously valid. but all you said is that if we assume materialism, we imply materialism.
setnoset 3 weeks ago
@setnoset Are you aware of anthing other than matter and energy? If so what is it? Not its function or character. Its ontology, its substance. Until you answer you havent made a claim I can honesty accept or reject.
OpenAirAtheist 3 weeks ago
one could argue that man simply has not the need but developed the adoptation for civilization and its mediating morales governed through the ages for control, and would develp much more strongly and healthily in a purely natural/ green friendly evironment where natural selection takes charge. where i beleive transcendentiality takes roll is the development of a mind complex enough for such transendential thoughts. we owe abtract reasoning to the hypo/thalamus in our brains but the physical...
420dankykush 9 months ago
@420dankykush ..presence of such devices consisting in our minds to know that in fact: we do not know what happens when we die and: we function harmoniously obeying the laws of the physical properties we can all amazingly comprehend. so theres a deffinite unanswered question in mortality we all have to ask ourselves because there is no way to prove it: are the impulses driven by complete phyisical and realistic positism to the universe and area of time we make the decision to do right or wrong
420dankykush 9 months ago
"And yet we all seem to fail at it!"
Yeah, what's with that?? :|
Maybe we should just face the truth? That we do what is right in spite of the threat to our own being; our sense of morality also evolving as we mature and learn more about the world we are living in.
666arzin 9 months ago
Respect:
We have torespect each other. If not, there would be a chaos of violence and murder. The religious people have to respect the materilistic people and vicecersa. We can co exist, but not with stupidity of religon but whisdon of tolerance.
Abismabagrandatimaba 11 months ago
Anothe disquisition: The "Bible idiots"say the world was created in only the six days the old testament says. dint you know there was dinosours? Didnt you know there were a very long and varieted team of different eras in the history odf our planet that clearly demonstrate the creationism is not true?
Abismabagrandatimaba 11 months ago
One last argue; where was god when his predilected people, the judes were massively assesinated by the Nazis in WWII? He aniquilated egyptians when prosecutong the hebrew in the ancient testament, he aniquilarted sodoma and gomorra, etc... But... and... when the WWII? This is a clear demonstration of the non existence of god.
Abismabagrandatimaba 11 months ago
The materialism is not an argue and no more, my respected reflect 7. Materialism is substaced and argumented by genious of the humanity such as: Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Karl Marx and others. Yes, you, the north american people have the inmediate tendence to confuse materilism with socilism or communism. It is no so. In the other side: the theory of complexity, the intelligent design, and other theoriessearching "gods"have been demonstrated as only intensions of religious sects and no more.
Abismabagrandatimaba 11 months ago
All these things made to keep a check on us..is just fear of death...... and the fact that we are not special.
RayRai8262 1 year ago
Dude, religious hierarchy fits perfectly into evolution and materialism. When your present actions or more so the actions of a be fruitful and multiply zionazi mammon religion me me me world, you and your own little invisible god world, you are already extinct with or with out dog spelled backwards. SEASON = Spiritual Evolution and Scientific Naturalism we can all go eternal together though a collective cooperative effort no alpha Moses dude god necessary. Unified Field Theory!
wiscokiddd 1 year ago
Material Products:
1. Expensive to cut down wastefulness.
2. Expensive to cut down needless production.
3. Expensive to lessen materialism.
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
@TranshumanCyborg
exactly
MrMushroom123 1 year ago
@TranshumanCyborg A great book to start with, although it doesn't specifically tackle materialism and the human brain, is "On Human Nature" by EO Wilson. I chose that over "Astonishing Hypothesis" by Francis Crick, because it is a lot less dry and not a lot of pages in it. But if you are serious in exploring the materialist position read "Synaptic Self: How Our Brains Become Who We Are" by Joseph LeDoux. Wilson's book is holistic while LeDoux is specific.
Nades129 1 year ago
@TranshumanCyborg You really do need to read literature in Neuroscience. You will find that a lot of behaviors are the result of the brain's activities. A lot of the human brain has been map of what it does. This includes language, vision, planning, and behavioral movements. But humans can still choose despite this deterministic proposition. Free will is just really, when you boil it down, choice that is different from all other animals.
Nades129 1 year ago
Ahh, so much assumptions in a 4 minute vid. A student of neuroscience would be the first to say that actions are determined by the materialistic brain. As for that transcendent value of morality, that's the same with numbers, but there is no absolute teacher that will give anyone an F if you get the math wrong.
As for his comment on moral thought as evidence for an after-life doesn't even connect. It's like saying we have hands so after life we can climb a ladder to heaven.
Nades129 1 year ago
am i materialisic if i like name brand stuff but i dont brag about having it or i dont put it before god ?_?
DJrain411 1 year ago
reflect7 please reply to my message
it makes sense to discuss alternative views to reach that bit closer to "enlightenment" as it were.
If you don't reply then I hope the epthany of what i said wasn't too hard hitting :P
TypicalEnglish 1 year ago
@TypicalEnglish Sorry, I thought I did reply... My question was how, when, and why did we go from a survival-based species to a cooperative social-based species? Matter-acting-on-matter evolution doesn't account for this rational/conscious shift to community/protecting the weak/altruism/love/equality/minority rights... At a slight level, selfish cooperation can be explained by evolutionary theory, but it's not even close to the level we support/promote as humans today.
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7 Sorry if you had,
My answer is that we never did leave the survival-based species route, but adapted to inherit cooperative social based acustoms as well. If it had no correlation with survival, then we would remain isolated individuals similar to how Orangutans live. If someone kills someone else, we are enraged, dissappointed, is it morals? I believe it is a retaliation to sustain order necessary to survive. Morals came after cooperation. (running out of letters haha)
TypicalEnglish 1 year ago
@reflect7 Social Darwinism mate
pundied36 3 months ago
Moral psychology does not require a supernatural explanation. There is plenty of research being done to explain our moral psychology. Even if you assume that not always acting in your own self interest is irrational, that just shows that people are irrational, which is nothing new. Isn't acting based on reward or punishment in the afterlife just another form of self interest?
slayerule 1 year ago
He is wrong. it is not "how I'LL get the prey" or "how I'LL get ahead"... we are a social species, it benefits our whole existence to cooperate. This is shown in the Prisonners Dilemma.
TypicalEnglish 1 year ago 2
@TypicalEnglish WHY? Where did your concept of "social species" come from? This doesn't mesh with Darwinian evolution at all --
reflect7 1 year ago
@reflect7 Yes it does! Why do you think animals travel in packs/schools/flocks/herds/etc...
NavinJohnson90 1 year ago
@reflect7 Yes it does, as long as you understand what evolution actually is. "survival of the fittest", but do you know what the "fittest" means? It does NOT mean who is the strongest, fastest, etc. It means who is most able to adapt to changing conditions. Also, evolution works on populations, NOT individuals.
So you're whole premise is based on a strawman version of evolutionary theory.
Da40kOrks 1 year ago
@reflect7 sure it does. The point of natural selection is to make our species more adapted to the environment. It helps us as a species to collaborate and help one an other in society, it makes us more productive. That being said my morals don't come from anything metaphysical, they come from the fact that i realize that everyone is equal. Im not better or worse then anyone so it doesn't make sense to treat people unfairly.
Idontplayaround 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TypicalEnglish
"we are a social species, it benefits our whole existence to cooperate"
yeah, but it benefits the survival of our whole species. altruism is a thing you can reflect even on animals, especially mammals. its even more important that the whole species survives, than yourself.
this doesnt change the fact that its all about survival.
did i make a point?
MrMushroom123 1 year ago
Morality is simply what society has agreed upon as right and wrong. That doesn’t mean they were instilled in us by a divine being. They were developed over time by our species to keep our world in order.
CrazyC1456 1 year ago
Comment removed
CrazyC1456 1 year ago
You have to consider that everyone's perception of right and wrong can be different. It all depends on what we are taught. When we experience something the chemical reactions of our brain create an emotion that tell us either that feels good or that feels bad. This very thing happens when we are young, certain things are discourage or encouraged by some authority figure, and we learn to do the ones that get us encouragement rather than discouragement. We aren't born with morals.
CrazyC1456 1 year ago
none of this matters. we dont exist anyway. we know nothing and never will. All this man is doing is comparing opposing theories. Everything he talks about is based on inventions of the human mind. And when one accepts that the human mind is not the end of the spectrum, one realizes nothing is as it seems.
omnisearch 1 year ago
(2/2) Morality in essence is dependant upon cultural upbringing. Moral decision making is not an absolute process that must proceed in a predetermined method. It's a conflict in evaluating between possible consequences for oneself and others. Based upon principles, gained by personal realisation or cultural bias, people decide what is right and wrong in a particular case. But this decision can be overturned if the situation is altered or if the principles are reformed.
Gigano1986 2 years ago 2
when you say people decide what is right or wrong, its not really right or wrong is it? Since people are deciding what it is, right and wrong are probably not the right words. "Preferable" is probably apt. Are you advocating relativism or moral nihilism?
dmn22 2 years ago
Preferable, I agree, would be a better word to describe the right/wrong tag.
I advocate moral relativism, based upon hard-wired principles from an evolutionary process and cultural upbringing and bias.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
When you rewind evolutionary history and get to the early humans who applied moral principles, the first culture, where did they learn their morals from?
dmn22 2 years ago
Experience in combination with hard-wired principles (i.e. basal brain functions that aren't taught but are innate).
An evolutionary process would develop the basic principle that prevents an individual from harming (stealing, killing, lying) others if these others are likely to be encountered again (relatives, family etc.). This principle is beneficial for the survival of the specified individual.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
If an individual lives with a population whom he frequently engages violently, he is less likely to gather larger amounts of resources that enable him to proliferate and reproduce, passing on the innate behaviour. The affected population that does engage in tit for tat behaviour and basic innate principles is more likely to survive in reproduce.
In this way, innate behaviour is passed on to the next generations. Cognitive biases take part at the onset of culture.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
Very well put. What you have just done is give a description of morality, but isn't morality prescriptive? How do the socio-biological pressures account for intention and motive which are elemental in morality? How does biology inform me on how i should act tomorrow? What i 'ought' or 'ought' not to do.
dmn22 2 years ago
Quite simple: it doesn't inform or advise, it merely describes the mechanism. The natural science of biology isn't a philosophical study that can be used to make moral decisions. Conscious decision making is far more complex and unpredictable than the brain structures that facilitate it.
Morality is indeed prescriptive, but it one's moral principles are not bound to any objective standard. It's rather more subjective and subtle, depending on situation, consequence and actors.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
Biological evolutionary explanations can inform that you 'ought' not kill, steal from or lie to any familiar individuals of your population or species to increase reproductive succes. Consequences of doing such may be detrimental to yourself.
As for other kinds of moral decision making (ethical dilemma's and such), it's like I said more philosophy than quantifiable science. It varies from individual to individual, depending on your principles, opinions and cultural upbringing.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
How can lying stealing or killing familiar individuals be detrimental to myself? If i dont get caught, could i still do those things? I dont see why not.
Everything is centered around the survival of the group. Why should one care about the group, why care about reproducing? The law of the jungle seems to be the only truth, might is right.
dmn22 2 years ago
This is a common misconceptions about evolution. The group is not important: it's the individual and his genes that matters. If an individual relies on others to provide resources and safety from predators, than it's beneficial to not kill or harm that group.
Lying, stealing or killing familiar individuals may lead to an impediment in those resources and safety provision. E.g.: If an individual kills all the members in the group, no one can provide and protect him, nor reproduce with him.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
Stealing resources will lead to an uneven division of those resources, impeding other members of the group to surive, and impede them in providing and protecting the individual as well as offspring to mate with.
Lying can lead to a decline in the reliability of information: mistrust. Communication in a group is paramount for operating together to provide, to protect and again to mate.
Every sentient organism has urges to mate with his own species. It all comes down to self-replicating DNA.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
As for the law of the jungle "might is right". Power is useless if an individual is alone and can't reproduce. Bacteria are among the most powerless organisms on the planet, yet they are absolutely succesful in living in almost environment (even in the guts of humans).
Power, strength and might are worth nothing if you're sterile and therefore can't reproduce. Features and methods to increase reproductive succes are what is really important.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
all your responses which are meant to explain morality depend on some prior moral notion to hold together. The best one can do is explain past bahaviour. It cannot account for motive and intent which are both non-physical elements and cant even in principle evolve an evolutionary sense. If the moral element is prior to the behaviour then it cant be the behaviour itself.
dmn22 2 years ago
Motive and intent are features of behaviour, which in turn is caused by activating neurological pathways, which in turn are laid down according to genetic information: genes.
Genes are physical, genes can and do evolve. A change in genes or gene expression can and does lead to different behaviour and thus difference in motive and intent. (See increased serotonin receptor expression in mice leading to increased aggression.)
Motive and intent do not evolve, behaviour does.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
How is that a difference in motive and intent? Its just a difference in behaviour. Motive and intent are immaterial entities, one cannot get the immaterial from the material. Its not amenable to science.
dmn22 2 years ago
Motive and intent are virtual concepts, seen or attributed to physical reactions but do not exist in physical form. Just like the concept of migration is attributed to a moving population of individuals, or talking that is attributed to the movement of a tongue in combination with alternating soounds and tones.
Migration and talking are immaterial entities, but they are caused and produced by physical interactions. Same thing for behaviour, motive and intent.
This isn't a case of dualism.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
For as long as there is a moving population there is migration. I would agree on that. But behaviour and motive are not in line. if a scientist looks at ones behaviour and then knows ones motive and intent for that same behavioural pattern in the future, is just completely false.
"Oh it was an accident" "I didn't mean that, what i meant was..."
motive and intent are very real and at times are opposite to behaviour. To explain it through the scientific method is kind of a category mistake.
dmn22 2 years ago
Also this has all exemplified a fallacy in logic called the genetic fallacy which is faulting an idea just because of where it comes from. Just because you can give something an evolutionary lineage doesn't mean its false. If that is supposed to undermine morals being objective just because it has a history, then you could say the same for scientific theorising, if consistent then you cant even hold evolutionary theory to be true. So its self-refuting.
dmn22 2 years ago
I'm not sure I understand what your intentions are in this post.
If you think I'm using evolutionary theory to disproof objective morality, then you've misunderstood me. I started to elaborate morality according to evolutionary psychology to answer your question of "How does biology inform me on how i should act tomorrow?" to which I replied that it only informs that you 'ought' to increase your odds of reproductive succes, nothing more. Other kinds of morality are cultural, not biological.
Gigano1986 2 years ago
(1/2) Your explanation of morality by darwinian philosophy is grossly oversimplified. Survival is important, yes, but only if an organism is capable of reproduction. Altruism can benefit reproductive succes in the sense of sharing resources.
Furthermore, moral "absolutes" are not adhered universally. Killing and lying is condoned in some cultures. Western society frown upon it, and because the moral bias in our society is shared by a huge population, we tend to think of it being an absolute.
Gigano1986 2 years ago 2
All "oughts" are dependant on "ifs".
eg I ought to behave this way "if" I want that outcome.
eg I ought to kill the lamb if I want gods approval.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Another gem!! Keep the videos coming...
Greg DeMario
successpayswell 2 years ago
You have NO idea what you're talking about. In the is ought gap problem, the "is" is how things are, and the "ought" is what one should do. You can only bridge the gap with goals and needs.
Tcrowaf 2 years ago
5* and favourite! =)
mattea19841984 2 years ago