Guns, Guns Guns

As someone who has studied biology, a moral code is actually biologically useful and selected for. helping others is more likely to help your survival to breeding, and increase breeding partners, to put it into simple biological ideas. What we consider morals are really just natural pressures on us by biology to help spread our genes. Its known as kin selection and network reciprocity.


As for me, i believe that for an atheist and a religious person holding the same morals, the atheist is the one who is holding the better morals as they are holding them of their own free accord, as opposed to a religious person who believes that following the morals increases their chances of ending up in the right place in the afterlife.

namelessfly wrote:

Daryl wrote:I do find the assumption that "the moral limits of a Judeo/Christian ethos" is a unique and good thing, to be typical of what many outside the US look askance at.
Lots of good people both inside and outside the church, and it is somewhat offensive to believe in an absolute moral superiority held only by christians. Like a great many others I'm somewhat biased because of nasty things done to me in my defenceless youth by religious people in authority. In this country we are currently in the process of a major investigation regarding sexual abuse to children by all organisations which is exposing a massive cess pool of evil. While organisations like the Scouts and such are coming in for some criticism, the bulk of the crimes are by churches.

While I am a believer in a monotheistic faith, I concede that the Judeo/Christian faith does not have a monopoly on morality. Most faiths around the world share a consensus with the Judeo/Christain faith on many moral issues. To be blunt, I have theological differences with many Christains yet share their opinions on moral issues. I consider this consensus among many faiths including non judeo christains, to be a validation of my belief that morality is divinely inspired. I also understand that there are atheists who share my views on morality yet few can articulate a rationale for their moral code. (Logic and socio-biology can actually validate morality)

One thing is certain is that membership in a religious organization that exposes a certain morality does not guarantee that a person will abide by that morality. The idea that ALL humans are fallible is a major tenant of my religion. We are dependant on God's grace for forgiveness. Because humans are fallible, religious groups are also fallible. The Catholic church in America has been guilty of some rather grevious sins as have various Protrstant denominations. The new Pope (I am Baptist, not Catholic) should be commended for reprimanding Catholic leaders in the US who have allowed their desire to protect the church to take precedence over their moral obligations to the victims of abuse.

Interesting in several ways, Spacekiwi.

I tend to agree with you that many elements of behavior have an instinctual basis. This is a problem in relation to morality. If morality is in part a product of evolution, then it is not a choice but an instinct to some degree. In other words one doesn't choose to behave morally, one is either instinctually wired to do so or not. Only if one learns "moral" behavior does it gain a moral component. Otherwise, moral behavior is simply hardwired or programmed and contains no moral choice at all.

Second, if a being has a better chance of survival in behaving in a "moral" manner, then is that not a reward? How different is that then behaving morally to achieve eternal life? I see none at all.

Third, the idea of kin selection is one of the reasons an absolute morality is so essential to traditional American character traits. We are a nation that makes random association. We base those associations on things beyond genetic kinship. We form clubs and groups on the barest of similarities between its members. De Tocqueville commented on the remarkable degree that Americans did this sort of thing. These sorts of associations are only feasible if we continue to value each other's commonalities beyond genetic kinship. A biology based moral scheme would in many ways erode that advantageous American trait.

Finally, this argument that morality has a biological component is at its core the basis for Calvin's concept of Total Depravity. That man is incapable of moral behavior without God's Grace. That man is bound by his imperfect body (genes) to a set of behaviors. That set of behaviors does not conform to God's plan for His creation (the universe). Only through a relationship with God can man learn of God's plan and then conform his behavior in accordance with that plan.

In summary if morality is based in biology, then there is no choice involved in being moral. One is either wired to behave that way or not. One might even argue that behaving contrary to biological imperatives is moral but in accordance to it isn't just because the former is a choice and the latter is not. None of this argues about the accuracy of your assertions. I'll leave that to others.

Spacekiwi wrote:As someone who has studied biology, a moral code is actually biologically useful and selected for. helping others is more likely to help your survival to breeding, and increase breeding partners, to put it into simple biological ideas. What we consider morals are really just natural pressures on us by biology to help spread our genes. Its known as kin selection and network reciprocity.


As for me, i believe that for an atheist and a religious person holding the same morals, the atheist is the one who is holding the better morals as they are holding them of their own free accord, as opposed to a religious person who believes that following the morals increases their chances of ending up in the right place in the afterlife.

Spacekiwi wrote:As someone who has studied biology, a moral code is actually biologically useful and selected for. helping others is more likely to help your survival to breeding, and increase breeding partners, to put it into simple biological ideas. What we consider morals are really just natural pressures on us by biology to help spread our genes. Its known as kin selection and network reciprocity.


As for me, i believe that for an atheist and a religious person holding the same morals, the atheist is the one who is holding the better morals as they are holding them of their own free accord, as opposed to a religious person who believes that following the morals increases their chances of ending up in the right place in the afterlife.

Prooving once again that you do not understand the fundamental premiss of Christianity.

While other faiths are predicated on the premis that salvation is through works, Christianity is predicated on the belief that you are save through grace solely on your belief, not your behavior.

Christians are called to behave morally and do good works to honor God and because it is right, not to earn their salvation which is unconditional.

Your other points are extremely well taken. However; this instinctive morality is functional only within closely related kinship groups where altruistic behaviors benefit people who share your genes. Instinctive morality is functional in ethnically homogeneous societies but dysfunctional and maladaptive within heterogeneous societies. The fact that the US which IS the most diverse nation on the planet still embraces a traditional moral code is astounding.

edited for spelling and formatting.

Replying by section.

PeterZ wrote:Interesting in several ways, Spacekiwi.

I tend to agree with you that many elements of behavior have an instinctual basis. This is a problem in relation to morality. If morality is in part a product of evolution, then it is not a choice but an instinct to some degree. In other words one doesn't choose to behave morally, one is either instinctually wired to do so or not. Only if one learns "moral" behavior does it gain a moral component. Otherwise, moral behavior is simply hardwired or programmed and contains no moral choice at all.

Yeah, it does seem to be in part an instinct, as opposed to a function of higher brain functions, at least in part, unfortunately. Elephants have been shown to have empathy and altruistic behaviours for example. (Rodriguez, Tommy (2011). Diaries of Dissension: A Case Against the Irrational and Absurd. iUniverse Publishing.) Micahel Shermer found lots of animals have at least a basic set of moral behaivours, called premoral sentiments. (Shermer, Michael (2004). The Science of Good and Evil. New York: Times Books.)

However, I think the problem with the idea about morality being a choice or not is that morality is defined as differentiating between rights and wrongs. this instinctual aspect doesnt denigrate morality, it actually enhances it, as it ensures that rights and wrongs arent just individually good and bad, but also to a societal level, actually giving a platform for more complex morals to be based off. this genetic component in my view acts as a foundation for the more complex morals.

Second, if a being has a better chance of survival in behaving in a "moral" manner, then is that not a reward? How different is that then behaving morally to achieve eternal life? I see none at all.

Not really. If everyone is doing it, then it is not so much a reward anymore as the status quo, and failure to participate is a punsighment of sorts, as evolution selects against bad traits, as well as for good traits. But whether or not it is a reward, then you would still have the effect of religious people getting a second reward for the action, in the belief that what they have done will earn divine brownie points.

Also, I see it as kind of the big brother syndrome, in that is we know we are being watched, we tend to do more socially acceptable actions. An agnostic/atheist doesnt believe in the big brother, so any potential effect this may have on them is non-existant, as is any connotations that it may be in any way not fully altruistic due to being ordered to by a book. To paraphrase terry pratchett: "only we know what we are, when we are alone in the dark".

Third, the idea of kin selection is one of the reasons an absolute morality is so essential to traditional American character traits. We are a nation that makes random association. We base those associations on things beyond genetic kinship. We form clubs and groups on the barest of similarities between its members. De Tocqueville commented on the remarkable degree that Americans did this sort of thing. These sorts of associations are only feasible if we continue to value each other's commonalities beyond genetic kinship. A biology based moral scheme would in many ways erode that advantageous American trait.

Actually, the reciprocity and altruism isnt just genetically focused. the network reciprocity idea focues on reciprocity and altruism in non genetically linked groups, such as elephant bachelor herds, and other non genetically related groups. So I would say that it does not erode, merely sets the foundation/basis for this

Finally, this argument that morality has a biological component is at its core the basis for Calvin's concept of Total Depravity. That man is incapable of moral behavior without God's Grace. That man is bound by his imperfect body (genes) to a set of behaviors. That set of behaviors does not conform to God's plan for His creation (the universe). Only through a relationship with God can man learn of God's plan and then conform his behavior in accordance with that plan.

I would say the opposite really. Biology is giving us the foundations or morals, and giving us the basis of distinction of good and bad, allowing us to behave in a way such that a society and culture is possible, without the requirement for a deity or outside orders. Without the biological basis, we probably wouldnt have morals at all, or even culture/society, due to the fact that the basis on which we can found morality, and the ideas for what are right and wrong at the most basic level are partially biologically based. The biology is the blueprints to a project if you will. you cant get anything done without knowing the general direction you should be heading.
Therefore, in my opinion, Calvin actually had it the wrong way. Man is only capable of what we term morality and morals because of the biological aspect, which also helped shape the more advanced parts of morality. Given a blank page and the idea of needing to improve/finish it, how do you do it? You do much better when given the outline or if its a paint by numbers book.

So I would say God is irrelevant in deciding morals.

In summary if morality is based in biology, then there is no choice involved in being moral. One is either wired to behave that way or not.

Biology isnt actually this black and white. Yes the genetics may hardwire in morals and the ideas of which ideas are right and wrong, but that can only ever be the scaffolding. In the growth of an organism, a large part of how it develops is due to epigenitics, or the effect of the environment. Also, the effect of multiple genes working on a single trait causes pleiotropy, which means often characteristics like skin colour are not on/off, but sliding scale. So morals could be wired into you at different strengths, eg at a strength such that other traits such as selfishness may be stronger, still allowing for morals to be thought based.So we arent really wired for morals so much as wired to have a predisposition towards acting morally, the definiton of which hinges on the basic behaivours predisposed for by biology. So I think the basis of morals isnt just nuture, but also nature.

One might even argue that behaving contrary to biological imperatives is moral but in accordance to it isn't just because the former is a choice and the latter is not. None of this argues about the accuracy of your assertions. I'll leave that to others.

[/quote]

To quote Matthew 25:31-46 :



When the Son of Man comes in His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates his sheep from the goats, and He will set the sheep on His right hand but the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those on His right hand, “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took Me in, I was naked and you clothed Me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” ... “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My Brethren, you did it to me.”

Then He will also say to those on the left hand, “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave Me no food, I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.” ... “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

So the bible states that moral behaivour is required to get into heaven, and that those who dont behave well towards others will go to hell. So salvation is required by your works.

The vatican in the catechisms of the church state that:

988 The Christian Creed - the profession of our faith in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and in God's creative, saving, and sanctifying action - culminates in the proclamation of the resurrection of the dead on the last day and in life everlasting.

989 We firmly believe, and hence we hope that, just as Christ is truly risen from the dead and lives for ever, so after death the righteous will live for ever with the risen Christ and he will raise them up on the last day.


So, again it can be seen that there is a requirement to be righteous to get into heaven.

The Quran has passages noting the same thing (surah 54:52-53):

054.052
YUSUFALI: All that they do is noted in (their) Books (of Deeds):
PICKTHAL: And every thing they did is in the scriptures,
SHAKIR: And everything they have done is in the writings.

054.053
YUSUFALI: Every matter, small and great, is on record.
PICKTHAL: And every small and great thing is recorded.
SHAKIR: And everything small and great is written down.

The Judaists have the same belief. (from the rosh hashanah) :

All mankind will pass before You like members of the flock. Like a shepherd pasturing his flock, making sheep pass under his staff, so shall You cause to pass, count, calculate, and consider the soul of all the living; and You shall apportion the fixed needs of all Your creatures and inscribe their verdict.


Christianity and the other Abrahamic faiths are therefore sitll based on the idea of salvation through deeds, not just belief.


Also, as pointed out in my post to PeterZ, instinctive morality, or the behaviours thereof, have been shown to occur in non related groups. relatedness helps, but isnt necessarily essential. Interactions between the individuals can be required, but not necessarily. Network reciprocity allows for the idea that we can instinctually appreciate the ideas of pay it forward in such a way that we may one day benefit directly or indirectly. So instinctive morality is still adaptive in heterogenous societies, just in a slightly different way to in a homogenous society.

namelessfly wrote:Prooving once again that you do not understand the fundamental premiss of Christianity.

While other faiths are predicated on the premis that salvation is through works, Christianity is predicated on the belief that you are save through grace solely on your belief, not your behavior.

Christians are called to behave morally and do good works to honor God and because it is right, not to earn their salvation which is unconditional.

Your other points are extremely well taken. However; this instinctive morality is functional only within closely related kinship groups where altruistic behaviors benefit people who share your genes. Instinctive morality is functional in ethnically homogeneous societies but dysfunctional and maladaptive within heterogeneous societies. The fact that the US which IS the most diverse nation on the planet still embraces a traditional moral code is astounding.

I'm probably extremely naïve and simplistic however I do believe in the concepts of absolute good, bad and degrees between. We have all had pets, human friends and relatives that display behaviour across that spectrum. I've known people who regard themselves as being extremely moral, good church attendees, not enjoying recreational sex or drugs, and the rest; yet in business they revel in cheating those who can't afford to lose. At the same time I know others who are forever doing things that the righteous would tut-tut about, yet you could trust them to never cheat you. I've also known the converse about both groups as well. Who is to say that recreational sex or having fun generally is wrong, or right?
Far too often I've run across the "rule are rules" or generally prune faced people who I wouldn't trust for a minute with my money or kids.

Daryl wrote:I'm probably extremely naïve and simplistic however I do believe in the concepts of absolute good, bad and degrees between. We have all had pets, human friends and relatives that display behaviour across that spectrum. I've known people who regard themselves as being extremely moral, good church attendees, not enjoying recreational sex or drugs, and the rest; yet in business they revel in cheating those who can't afford to lose. At the same time I know others who are forever doing things that the righteous would tut-tut about, yet you could trust them to never cheat you. I've also known the converse about both groups as well. Who is to say that recreational sex or having fun generally is wrong, or right?
Far too often I've run across the "rule are rules" or generally prune faced people who I wouldn't trust for a minute with my money or kids.

You have obviously met my step Uncle - adoptive brother.

Not only does he cheat his customers (the shelf tags at his grocery stores systematically understate the price in the computer for that UPC code), and screwed step siblings with lethal results, he screws over his sister, his biological niece and nephew, and even his own son.

I would prefer to respond in multiple posts as each section deserves individual attention.

Spacekiwi wrote:edited for spelling and formatting.

Replying by section.

PeterZ wrote:Interesting in several ways, Spacekiwi.

I tend to agree with you that many elements of behavior have an instinctual basis. This is a problem in relation to morality. If morality is in part a product of evolution, then it is not a choice but an instinct to some degree. In other words one doesn't choose to behave morally, one is either instinctually wired to do so or not. Only if one learns "moral" behavior does it gain a moral component. Otherwise, moral behavior is simply hardwired or programmed and contains no moral choice at all.

Yeah, it does seem to be in part an instinct, as opposed to a function of higher brain functions, at least in part, unfortunately. Elephants have been shown to have empathy and altruistic behaviours for example. (Rodriguez, Tommy (2011). Diaries of Dissension: A Case Against the Irrational and Absurd. iUniverse Publishing.) Micahel Shermer found lots of animals have at least a basic set of moral behaivours, called premoral sentiments. (Shermer, Michael (2004). The Science of Good and Evil. New York: Times Books.)

However, I think the problem with the idea about morality being a choice or not is that morality is defined as differentiating between rights and wrongs. this instinctual aspect doesnt denigrate morality, it actually enhances it, as it ensures that rights and wrongs arent just individually good and bad, but also to a societal level, actually giving a platform for more complex morals to be based off. this genetic component in my view acts as a foundation for the more complex morals.

Is morality a distinction between right and wrong or not? If it is defined that way, what is that definition and from where does it derive? One answer is that morality derives from God and its specific definitions are found in His revealed Word. This view does assert morality as the distinction between right and wrong. Right and wrong, good and evil, are defined in the broadest sense as that which either supports or detracts from God's plan for His creation.

Your answer depends on evolution. The gradual development of morality incrementally as a survival mechanism. Altruism is genetically selected for because the tendency to behave in this way increases the chance for the bearer of this gene to pass it to his progeny. Altruistic behavior must be successful at the individual level or the entire chain of logic fails.

How does altruism enhance the chance for survival and procreation? This process must have begun prior to or in tandem with the development of higher functions in humans. The most direct means appears to be through emotions. The individual feels an affinity or attraction or perhaps love for another. That love makes it easier to sacrifice for that individual. Sacrifice in that an individual places another's needs before his own. This might well entail a lower chance for survival.

Yet, this sacrifice must come after the individual making the sacrifice procreates. Otherwise, the trait will tend to die off as the gene groups carrying it is reduced in the general population. After a basic trend towards altruism, more complex sets of behavior might well arise. Teamwork and cooperation are excellent examples. These more complex sets of behaviors actually do increase the chance for survival of all participants.

There is just one problem. The individual is better served if everyone but him is altruistic and works together as a team. The cheater who cheats successfully gains an advantage. The group benefits most from everyone working as a team, but the individual gains most if he is the only one that does not. Game theory shows this pretty conclusively.

This conflict never goes away. Addressing this is what morality does. Sacrificing for others costs the individual. It requires a greater effort for him to not only survive but procreate. That increased effort makes the probability that he actually does survive and procreates less likely. Those that sacrifice less, exert less effort to teamwork, are more likely to survive and procreate. Over time, the gene sets that lead to greater individual sacrifice are reduced in the population.

The advantage of teamwork to groups remain. Group behavior patterns that compel individual participation would be have a survival advantage for the most sets of genes. We would expect to see group hierarchies with powerful controls over individual actions. In short groups would compel to some degree the individual teamwork that would benefit the group. We do see this type of society very well represented in our world.

All this is to say, that biology does not select for moral behaviors as we understand such behaviors. Compulsion is hardly a moral trait. Biology would select against traits leading to altruism and sacrifice.

Further responses as time permits.

Spacekiwi wrote:edited for spelling and formatting.

Replying by section.

PeterZ wrote:Interesting in several ways, Spacekiwi.

snip
Second, if a being has a better chance of survival in behaving in a "moral" manner, then is that not a reward? How different is that then behaving morally to achieve eternal life? I see none at all.

Not really. If everyone is doing it, then it is not so much a reward anymore as the status quo, and failure to participate is a punsighment of sorts, as evolution selects against bad traits, as well as for good traits. But whether or not it is a reward, then you would still have the effect of religious people getting a second reward for the action, in the belief that what they have done will earn divine brownie points.

Also, I see it as kind of the big brother syndrome, in that is we know we are being watched, we tend to do more socially acceptable actions. An agnostic/atheist doesnt believe in the big brother, so any potential effect this may have on them is non-existant, as is any connotations that it may be in any way not fully altruistic due to being ordered to by a book. To paraphrase terry pratchett: "only we know what we are, when we are alone in the dark".

The thing is survival is its own reward regardless if religious people believe there is another reward in addition to survival. Btw, not all Christian believe salvation is a product of good works. Some of us believe good works are things we do because God Graced us with Salvation. We do these things in gratitude of an unearned gift not to bribe God to grant us what we do not deserve.

One could argue that since moral behavior benefits society more than the individual, a biological basis for morality is at heart an argument to encourage as many people to sacrifice as possible. The beneficiaries are those that do not sacrifice but are successful at encouraging sacrifice in others. Evolution instilled an emotional connection to others. Societal evolution then shapes that connection into a means of controlling the individual for the benefit of society. This is hardly a morally superior set of behaviors regardless of how effective these behaviors are at increasing the chance of survival.

Various human cultures do exhibit dramatically different norms for altruistic behavior.

As a rule, people in China and Japan sacrifice personal self interest to benefit the group. Those who are altruistic tend. To be reproductively "successful" (with a TFR of barely 1, few are not Darwinian failures). However; given the extremely low mortality rates everyone might be "successful" as the society downsizes it's population.

In certain parts of Africa, a lot of people are anything but altruistic. Think Somalia, Darfur, Zimbabwa, Rhawanda. Those who are most aggressive (particularly the males) have progeny while the more submissive do not. Given the extremely high mortality rates, most are Darwinian failures.

I suspect that there is a threshold of chaos that triggers most people to switch from altruistic to predatory behavior.