Morality and Atheism

You explained that very nicely to me, thanks lithium

So basically, the dishonest prey on the altruistic to work in their survivability and many times it works and is useful, but that altruism is more evolutionarily economic in the end because in a way it forces those to cooperate or die? People are also different enough to create this arms race as it were within species, but similar enough to create a balance? Makes sense.

Was just thinking if this can somehow tie in with the OP question

Have others tried?

They work within species but not between? Not even if one species causes another to go extinct? I just meant that violent behavior between species seems to be important because one survived and not the other. Even if it didn't bring about evolutionary traits, it may have aided in ones species survival and since the other was altruistic outside the species, wasn't for them. In other words, altruism is useful within species but not out side the species. Or is that wrong?

 

That makes sense. They just work together, like the arms race lithium brought up. Both can be useful maybe.

 

It must be kept in mind that not all behaviors are adaptive.

That being said there are several reasons why morality arose in the species to begin with, and there are some good explanations for why morality operates the way it does now.

The benefit of kind acts towards related people is obvious. We share half of our genes with siblings, and a diminishing amount with cousins, nephews, etc. As long as the benefit to the relative, discounted by the percentage of relatedness, is greater than the cost of the kind act then the kind act would be adaptive.

It is also probably true that in the ancestral environment people would constantly be interacting with the same people, because populations were small and sparse. This recurrent interaction favors cooperation.

It may be, and it is my belief, that modern morality is often a misfiring of these adaptive mechanisms. It is not adaptive for a man to risk his life to save someone he never met. But the mechanisms underlying those actions don't know that the person in need is a stranger and therefor not likely to reciprocate. The evolved mechanisms underlying morality consist of complex circuits in the ventral medial pre-frontal cortex and various parts of the limbic system. The limbic system is involved in the emotional and motivational aspects of morality whereas the pre-frontal cortex is involved in moral reasoning.

Also, I do not think that selection works at the group level. So I do not think that morality could have arisen due to its benefits to the group.

 

So then cooperation would be a result of similarity and that saving a person's life is the mistaken or incomplete response of the part of the brain that is responsible for moral reasoning? In a way, a tricked response to get some to act in a way that isn't adaptive?

Kinda like how we tease or manipulate our mental responses to get a desired effect

Interesting

 

Yes this is exactly it, though a related factor is that those who are seen to be generous and sincere and caring by members of their peer group - for instance by giving to charity, helping people they will never meet etc - will be more respected and more likely receive the benefits of co-operation. Selflessness towards others who cannot reciprocate does have an effect since those with whom you will routinely co-operate will regard you as kind and a good co-operator. So truly selfless altruism can indeed, ultimately, be evolutionarily selfish. This is the reason why acts of charity are very rarely done without people in some subtle way letting others they do know, know about it! Acting in kind ways without letting anyone at all know about it would be classed as a non-adaptive misfiring of our evolved mechanisms of morality...

 

Generally speaking in evolutionary terms I think that's right, altruism towards other species would be non-adaptive...

 

Litium, is it safe to assume that you are a proponent of evolutionary psychology? It's seems as though those of us who apply evolutionary theory to the mind are in a minority.

 

There is evolutionary brain development, that manifests as a phenomena known as computational thinking. Evolutionary theory requires vast amounts of time. Complex human social behaviors or conceptual models of proper functioning are learned in a single lifetime. Altruism is de facto inheritance of the biological system to the extent that each death contributes to the life of another individual and this process transcends species barriers. It is all common biological stock.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean dope, but I would like to say that complex human behaviors are learned in a short time but this is only possible because of the evolved innate faculties responsible for that learning. The mind is not a blank slate, the brain is not an all purpose general computational machine.

 

I agree with you that the mammalian brain rides atop the lizard brain. In the same turn the body itself is a machine, a communication device. The brain, yes, a computational machine that serves all our purposes.

 

How could god say "Thou Shalt Not Kill" while constantly commanding the tribes of Israel to kill, murder, and plunder?

I think the bible is what it is and has been used as a tool of convenience and power since the beginning of Judism. Christians have used it though the centuries to murder the innocent in the name of a god who said thou shalt not kill.

From an atheist standpoint. I have no problem with killing a human being who I perceive to be a threat to me. I do have a problem killing an innocent, such as an unborn child.

 

if humanity invented a "morality drug" should everyone be required to take it?

 

morality is just people not wanting to get fucked over.
They realize that if it's okay to steal and kill, they could lose all their shit and die very easily.

Nobody wants to have bad stuff happen to them, so morals are created to benefit a society as a whole.

 

THIS.
this is why I can't agree when Muslims say that Islam is a religion of peace... yet it forces its women to wear veils, instructs followers to kill nonbelievers, and to submit?
I agree with you. If an unborn child is standing in the way of my having a successful future, abortion. if someone is trying to otherwise hurt me, I'll hurt them.

 

Depends on if it feels good.

If I were to claim that morality comes from God, I'd say it was because God created the spirit which moves us all in that direction, towards harmony, regardless of whether or not we believe such a place as Heaven exists.

But it also seems like there's something inhuman about universal peace. Part of what makes us interesting and passionate for each other is our struggles with each other.

So I guess there's a question of morality vs. beauty as well. Personally, I find the Christian fantasy ugly. I don't find the idea of walking with Jesus in the clouds aesthetically pleasing. So is it moral for there to be a universal morality if it enforces itself upon those who simply don't find it appealing?

 

i agree entirely. to me, that sort of end seems limited.

what if there was a scientifically proven "way" that humans were "supposed" to behave, for the betterment of the species? aside from subjective disapproval, should such a solution be enforced?

i am not sure if i am talking in circles

 

If a morality drug was invented only people who habitually violate the rights of others should be forced to take it. Ordinary people should be free to commit minor moral wrongs throughout their lives.

 

By definition, morality is about what's right rather than what's appealing. To place your aesthetic likings on a plane with the appalling suffering caused by war, or to find "something inhuman" in peace, is immoral. War is all too human.

 

I find that hard to believe. I think some writers like Dawkins and Dennett have given plausible naturalistic accounts of the development of human morality, but a plausible naturalistic account is not the same as being "well understood in the scientific community." And lots of Christians like me believe in evolution.

Exactly. I think there are some Christians who would say God doesn't need to disclose His reasons, or mere humans are unable to understand them, or even worse that whatever God commands is right. In my opinion, accepting this view sets people up for condoning atrocities, such as those detailed in the Old Testament. As a Progressive Christian, I believe that God is good, not because He says so, but because His nature conforms to our sense of goodness. That presupposes that our sense of goodness is independent of God, although I'd consider it God-given. Leibniz noted centuries ago that in saying things are good only because God says so "destroys without realizing it, all the love of God and all His glory; for why praise Him for what He has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy for doing the contrary?

 

By definition then. Moral is accepted "custom". Custom is "habitual practice".
Morality then is conformity to habitual practice. Habitual practice begins with invocation. God is, "that which is invoked".