Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Morality has been studied and raked over the coals for centuries by many of the world's greatest minds, including Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, Kant, Mill, and many others. It is a rich but difficult field of study, with dozens of sub-texts assiduously worked up from every likely angle.
"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality — that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc."
Lastly, since a science of morality would mostly be about behavior, we cannot hope that data about objective functioning will provide us with an accurate moral compass. Minus the antique cosmology and ancient cultural trappings, basic Christian or Hebrew moral codes, or even Zen's Eightfold Path, are all plenty to go on. Verily, viable moral codes are not lacking in the world. Even a cursory review of ethics shows us as much. It's the discipline and conviction to follow them that is the hard part.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A community of hairless apes
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 4, 2011 - 05:50pm PT
|
re: cloning as means to honing the gene pool
A point with the cloning subject was that the more we rubberize the playground so to speak, or nannify society, the less natural selection works along traditional pathways (those pathways that gave strength to the gene pool of our ancestors) and the more it puts us on the path to the eyeless salamander or wingless dodo (classic examples of a genetic robustness in retreat, or of genetic inhebitude).
So with the rubberization or nannification, however you prefer it said, it's a kind of catch-22 or predicament that deserves reflection. (Or not, by some.)
.....
re: ethics, morals
One advance in the study of morals (if not the science of morals) is coming to the realization that supernaturalizing them (as religions have done) is superfluous, otherwise unnecessary. Morals of every codification and flavor can now be understood on an evolutionary natural basis. This is a step up in understanding, I think, from the ancients.
The natural sciences are telling us more and more about the choices we make and our reasons for making them...
Rock on, E.O. Wilson.
.....
It is a rich but difficult field of study, with dozens of sub-texts assiduously worked up from every likely angle.
Deserving a looksie once again from the vantage point of the 21st century, I'd say, now that we've got a lot more science, experience and knowledge in hand.
We cannot hope that data about objective functioning will provide us with an accurate moral compass.
I'd say we could certainly look forward to (or hope for) objective science data on wellbeing as a function of morals or moral codification informing our moral compass. I know that certain derivations from my own science education, for instance, have informed my moral compass over the years.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
One advance in the study of morals (if not the science of morals) is coming to the realization that supernaturalizing them (as religions have done) is superfluous, otherwise unnecessary. Morals of every codification and flavor can be understood on an evolutionary natural basis. That is a step up in understanding, I think, from the ancients.
---
No offense intended, but the above sketch does is not at all based on empirical evidence, but on a skewed person view that any and all adherents of "religion" or even spirituality are at once guilty of "supernaturalizing" and blindly believe in ancient voodoo shite entirely usurped by objective data.
The recovery movement, for one, is totally current and anything but superfluous, based on people's real world testimony.
I've said this before but my sense of this is your approach is based on a false concept per human behavior. This leads you to believe that a proper understanding of facts and ideas and moral concepts - no matter if they're based on Darwin or moon dust - will win the day. In fact the motto, "Knowledge availed us nothing," is an empirically-based behavioral fact underlying the counterintuitive truth that understanding is rarely enough to change behavior - and active morality is about what we DO.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
-A community of hairless apes
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 4, 2011 - 07:02pm PT
|
You see how it's all inter-related - the evolution of mind, the evolution of consciousness, the evolution of feelings, the evolution of morals (both inborn sentient and learned per culture), and the evolution of living things in general.
Either you're a evolutionist in the Darwinian sense or you're not. It's amazing how many who say "I believe in evolution" turn out to have barely reflected on its implications.
Switching to the evolutionary model in the Darwinian sense means accepting mind and consciousness and feelings (including moral feelings and moral circuits) as evolutionary products.
It's clear that many are not yet willing or able to take this on.
.....
FM,
But where are they GOING
I have no idea. It's wild though to watch it all unfold and to think it's all unfolding as a function of causality and initial conditions at the cosmic start up (i.e., big bang).
Largo,
Are you or are you not a evolutionist in the Darwinian sense? I think Ed or Fm might have asked you this on another thread but I didn't see your answer if you answered. We are each of us a multitude of cells, each packed with this incredible cellular machinery that looks "by intelligent design." From replication to glycolysis and the electron transport chain to action potential transmission to hosts of others. All of this evolved over time to the precision we are able to witness today. Agree or disagree with this new-age scientific claim?
.....
Can anyone offer up a reason why we should ditch, or at least. re-evaluate basic moral codes?
Like....
Fish on Friday?
Stoning adulterers to death?
Circumcision?
Yes, because these may either (a) maintain or (b) lead to... poorer practices in the "practice" of living. They may. Which is why it wouldn't hurt to re-evaluate every so often.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
The adjective moral is synonymous with "good" or "right."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Good and right are subjective. While they may not be entirely a personal opinion, for all intents and purposes – it ultimately comes down to that.
To make any sense at all of those two words it is necessary to define some over-arching principle and then determine to follow that principle. Good and right can then be defined relative to whether they adhere to or conflict with the over-arching principle accepted as guidance.
The nascent field of evolutionary psycholgy at least appears to be devoted to studying the data as to how our modes of thinking and behavior have developed. If that development has been of benefit to us, then we will have applied scientific methods to study behavior and behavioral consequences.
The next 100 years could be revolutionary. If we do not run ourselves into the ditch before then.
On a final note I am determined to abstain from further involvement on ST for the next month or so. I don’t have an internet connection in JT. I have a number of things I want you to talk about while I am gone. When we get back we will review all the conclusions that have been reached.
I fully expect Jesus and bolts shall both have been resolved.
The mind? I think it will take two months to do that one.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
FortMental
You say: Why SHOULD we abide a morality based in evolutionary behavior?
Answer: We should not abide. But evolutionary psychology as a science is relatively new and we should follow this line of thinking and inquiring a bit further since I think it will open up new understanding of ourselves in a perspectivism way. In my view a science of morality is a good thing. Maybe evolutionary psychology is the next big thing, but some next big things are good things. When I say "we should" I am thinking human beings or society at large and not necessarily you FortMental. You can do whatever you want to do.
You say: Why is consciousness and its refinements driving human evolution?
Answer: Your question is wrongly posed or false. Consciousness and its refinements is not driving human evolution, the sun is still extremely more important.
You say: Why should we allow human evolution to a more feminine state?
Answer: Should we? Are you kidding?
You say: Why should we continue funding SETI?
Answer: Yes, you are kidding.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
As a socio-cultural anthropologist I have to say that we already have plenty of empirical data about the end product of social evolution on this planet. So far about 6,000 different societies have been studied. We don't have to speculate about how we got where we are. Rather, we can simply look at the catalog of behaviors and observe how many and which societies practice a certain ethic.
So far we've been able to corelate ethics and religious belief along with politics, and marriage and family organization, among others, with a society's adaptation to its environment. Hunters and gatherers in vastly different parts of the world have more in common with each other than they do with agriculturalists who live next door.
The most interesting cases are those which seem to be exceptions to the rule as we try to understand if they really are or not. Often they are just much more subtle or inventive than the others.
We are currently debating science versus tradition on so many ST threads, because no society has yet arrived at a common adaptation to information age subsistence. I think it likely that it will happen first in the dynamic societies of East Asia who are leaping from agriculture to information, without being bogged down in the industrial age first.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2011 - 04:05pm PT
|
Some guidelines:
A science of morality should have at it's core an inquiry into the connection between our expressed values and or values-in-action - Are we walking the talk?
The inquiry should not be a theoretical search for universal values.
A change of morality to produce the agreed upon actionable consequences for society should have at it's core the establishing of agreed upon actions. People can have different expressed values and still agree upon actions.
A change of actions will lead to a change of morality, much better than the other way around.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2011 - 04:51pm PT
|
FortMental
You say "No, I'm not kidding. Developed societies are substantially more (culturally) feminine than they were, even just 50 years ago"
How I see it: There are still wars, there is still violence and I guess not any less violence than before, there is more competition than ever, more sport than ever, there are more extreme-sport-performers than ever. There are more people pushing borders at nearly every front than there ever was. China (every fifth person on earth) will in a few years be full of men searching for women, since girls have been chosen away. In my view these examples could be seen as signs of a "masculinisation of culture".
But maybe you by feminine culture is talking about something different?
Examples of ongoing femininisation of nature: Hormon-like pollution is leading to femininisation of fish. Stress and hormon-like pollution is leading to low quality sperm in men.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!