Materialism of the Gaps sub-discussion: the morality debate

Oh well, it looks like reductionist materialist evolutionary psychology may be rearing its ugly head here. From an editorial in the leading science journal Nature:  

"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." In other words, like Laplace they are saying that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. The true meaning of their editorial statement is really "the ideas of any and all spiritual belief systems and other belief systems that deny materialism can surely be put aside". 

and the editorial goes on to claim

"…the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact." 

Of course this is the gospel of Darwinism. Evolutionary psychologists have analyzed many aspects of human culture and thought, from altruism, to adultery, autism, rape, jealousy, monogamy, and of course, quite prominently, religion. Traditional views of human nature and culture have been assailed by evolutionary psychologists, who are never at a loss for theories as to how our values and traditions have been caused by Darwinian mechanisms–the struggle for survival of bipedal hominids on the savannah. In reality these hypotheses are mostly Darwinian just-so stories and ingenious speculation. A question comes to mind: what is the evolutionary psychologists’ explanation for evolutionary psychology? More broadly, what is the evolutionary explanation for athiestic materialism? 

Of course, if evolutionary psychology is right, all spiritual belief systems are fantasy, NDEers need to go in for serious mental therapy, all the parapsychologists need to find new careers, and all the proponents on Psience Quest need to find other forums where they can get real and concentrate their minds on some other more productive subjects.

Not only that, but the sceptics and atheists and conventional psychologists too would also be included in that last paragraph. The whole of humanity would be consigned to the asylum.

Oh well, it looks like reductionist materialist evolutionary psychology may be rearing its ugly head here.

I'm not sure one needs to appeal to evolutionary psychology for the argument that all action is, in some sense, self interest. IIRC this sort of argument was made even in ancient times in some way?

That said I think the argument ends up being tautological, because any action we can take morally is something we did in order to avoid feelings of moral disgust aimed at our selves.

Yes, that is true in some sense, but then the question is why we can even distinguish moral "seflish" actions from immoral commonly-accepted selfish ones. This gets into the concepts of character & personality that sadly are now regarded as folk-psychology, even if - as Braud[e] notes in Defense of Folk Psychology - these concepts have given us far greater day-to-day predictive power than the delusions of behaviorism.

I'm not sure one needs to appeal to evolutionary psychology for the argument that all action is, in some sense, self interest. IIRC this sort of argument was made even in ancient times in some way?

That said I think the argument ends up being tautological, because any action we can take morally is something we did in order to avoid feelings of moral disgust aimed at our selves.

Yes, that is true in some sense, but then the question is why we can even distinguish moral "seflish" actions from immoral commonly-accepted selfish ones. This gets into the concepts of character & personality that sadly are now regarded as folk-psychology, even if - as Braud[e] notes in Defense of Folk Psychology - these concepts have given us far greater day-to-day predictive power than the delusions of behaviorism.

I don't know about that. Say you encounter a bedraggled hungry-looking homeless person on the street and give him a $10 bill. Your motives are probably mixed and complicated - in part it may very well be an inner feeling of empathy for the person's plight and suffering, where the giver's inner nature has the qualities of kindness and compassion. Then the issue is what is the ultimate source of these qualities of being. Whether the apparently suffering person really deserved the help or was really just looking to finance his next fix is irrelevant and beside the point.

Of course the cynic or materialist believer in evolutionary psychology will contend that this is really somehow still self-interest in some sense or other, but the burden is then on the cynic to plausibly justify that faith.

I don't know about that. Say you encounter a bedraggled hungry-looking homeless person on the street and give him a $10 bill. Your motives are probably mixed and complicated - in part it may very well be an inner feeling of empathy for the person's plight and suffering, where the giver's inner nature has the qualities of kindness and compassion. Then the issue is what is the ultimate source of these qualities of being. Whether the apparently suffering person really deserved the help or was really just looking to finance his next fix is irrelevant and beside the point.

Of course the cynic or materialist believer in evolutionary psychology will contend that this is really somehow still self-interest in some sense or other, but the burden is then on the cynic to plausibly justify that faith.

Ah you have a point w. your example. If we interview someone who says they were moved by compassion or a sense of Charity, is it fair to then make the "just so" story of them trying to avoid moral pangs of guilt later?

Why is our secondary explanation better than their original [description of] motivation?

This gets into the folly of [t]rying to parse human action in terms of "force" vectors assigned to aspects of personality...not the least b/c "force" being arguably circular doesn't necessarily even explain causation in physics...

I don't know about that. Say you encounter a bedraggled hungry-looking homeless person on the street and give him a $10 bill. Your motives are probably mixed and complicated - in part it may very well be an inner feeling of empathy for the person's plight and suffering, where the giver's inner nature has the qualities of kindness and compassion. Then the issue is what is the ultimate source of these qualities of being. Whether the apparently suffering person really deserved the help or was really just looking to finance his next fix is irrelevant and beside the point.

Of course the cynic or materialist believer in evolutionary psychology will contend that this is really somehow still self-interest in some sense or other, but the burden is then on the cynic to plausibly justify that faith.

Perhaps I will honestly declare self-interest. Although I've not lived up to this always, on the occasions when I've helped other people in the street, it is because I see myself there in that person's situation. Though we may differ in the clothes we wear, or the coins in our pocket, in that moment I don't feel any separation, it is just two people on the same level, no difference. Because there is no difference, it doesn't even feel like giving, it is just taking something from one pocket and putting it into another. It could be that both pockets are my own, that's how it seems.

Oh well, it looks like reductionist materialist evolutionary psychology may be rearing its ugly head here. From an editorial in the leading science journal Nature:  

"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." In other words, like Laplace they are saying that God is an unnecessary hypothesis. The true meaning of their editorial statement is really "the ideas of any and all spiritual belief systems and other belief systems that deny materialism can surely be put aside". 

and the editorial goes on to claim

"…the idea that human minds are the product of evolution is not atheistic theology. It is unassailable fact." 

Of course this is the gospel of Darwinism. Evolutionary psychologists have analyzed many aspects of human culture and thought, from altruism, to adultery, autism, rape, jealousy, monogamy, and of course, quite prominently, religion. Traditional views of human nature and culture have been assailed by evolutionary psychologists, who are never at a loss for theories as to how our values and traditions have been caused by Darwinian mechanisms–the struggle for survival of bipedal hominids on the savannah. In reality these hypotheses are mostly Darwinian just-so stories and ingenious speculation. A question comes to mind: what is the evolutionary psychologists’ explanation for evolutionary psychology? More broadly, what is the evolutionary explanation for athiestic materialism? 

Of course, if evolutionary psychology is right, all spiritual belief systems are fantasy, NDEers need to go in for serious mental therapy, all the parapsychologists need to find new careers, and all the proponents on Psience Quest need to find other forums where they can get real and concentrate their minds on some other more productive subjects.

Self interest has nothing to do with evolution. It has to do with the "Self". Yes self likely is built partially from physical evolutionary processes but there's no reason it has to stop there. Reincarnation and the like would throw many other variable into the mix. Souls with lots of experience could provide a body and the genes it contains with an incredible survival advantage. But at the same time it might be a total disadvantage.

For example, someone who remembers many lives may not have as strong of a survival instinct since they know death isn't that bad. Such a thing could be maladaptive to the body so you might expect interesting countermeasures to evolve, Maybe supressing past life memories. Likewise someone who remembers other lives or between lives may end up having a very different view on what's "important" in life, since obviously physical survival is irrelevant. In the same way that genetic survival in humans depends on an interplay between males and females for reproduction, where both have to compete for the others affections. The body may also have to win the affections of a host soul to make it play the genetic survival game. Since otherwise, the soul has nothing to gain from it. I'm intending on doing a whole write up about this idea sometime.

Regardless, you still haven't demonstrated morality or anything else can actually objectively exist so it really doesn't matter what you're saying here.

Regardless, you still haven't demonstrated morality or anything else can actually objectively exist so it really doesn't matter what you're saying here.

But i[f] logic doesn't objectively exist the argument for necessity of objective evidence couldn't be made?

Yet if logic is objective, then we are talking about something in a similar class of conceptual "stuff" as morality...so it would be hard to claim that verification by objective evidence is necessary for something to exist?

But i[f] logic doesn't objectively exist the argument for necessity of objective evidence couldn't be made?

Yet if logic is objective, then we are talking about something in a similar class of conceptual "stuff" as morality...so it would be hard to claim that verification by objective evidence is necessary for something to exist?

In the first case the entire thing becomes irrelevant and is up to personal whims which still equals subjectivity.

In the second case he'd have to demonstrate that it's objective, which he can't because people like me will come along and not care or otherwise see it differently, thus proving its subjectivity.

But the underlying basics would, if they are to be consistent, have to utilize some prior conception of rationality? Is there a system that is internally sound but negates any of the syllogisms rules of inference yet is still considered to be rational?




I think this reduces "feeling good" to some base level where all feelings of positivity are equivalent in kind. Yet we can make decisions that feel good morally but are horrible either for us or for society - for example confessions of deception make part of us feel good but lead to consequences where we feel very bad.

We can both feel bad and feel good about moral decisions - defenses of free speech would be an example where we feel bad about enabling certain kinds of speech but feel good about supporting what we see as a major principle.

As for "internal equations" I don't think one can mathematically model the deliberation one makes when acting morally (or really acting from mental causes at all).



I think there's a difference between morality for the infinite contextual variables in every situation being in some Platonic realm versus the idea that the objective aspect of morality is a tendency toward certain actions over others. So morality's objective side could be dispositions rather than necessities.

It seems to me that morality either being completely subjective or completely objective is a false dilemma?

1: Maybe, but maybe you could rewrite those too. And if you can make it work you could just start with the assumption they're correct. I haven't tried it so I wouldn't know.

2: So? you still calculated it out that whatver you did was better than the alternatives even if it wasn't perfect.It depends how much you care about yourself vs society vs whatever goal you have etc. Self interest.

3: What's the difference between acting morally vs any other mental calculation? Again, demonstrate morality even exists. Show that it's somehow distinct from every other form of decision.

4: Platonic moralism could just as easily, if not more easily be explained via self interest, A tendency to do what you want to do. Achieve what you want to achieve, etc.

5: you can' really have something be in between objective and subjective. It's eventually one or the other. At best what you could argue is that when dealing with many other self interested parties, it's probably not great to do things directly against their self interest, since they will then resist what you're doing. From that you could garner that things like murder, theft, etc are bad. Not because of morality, because of practicality. That being said, theft, murder, etc may be the best actions to take to get what you want if you are able to do it in a way that avoids the consequences. so there's no clear cut, definitive actions or intentions that you can say are objectively good or evil. Just mixtures that are more or less effective at getting the person what they wanted.

Reminds me of one entry from the SCP Foundation, a writing community about writing up fictional anomalous objects in a blackops lab research format. Generally with a horror vibe.

I don't remember what number it was anymore but basically it was about some female humanoid entity that the staff had to rape and do horrible things to or else she'd give birth to some creature who's details and actions are redccted but implied to be incredibly dangerous resulting in lots of death. As a result lab staff had to be chosen for their sexual deviancy and genuine desire to perform these actions since otherwise it wouldn't suppress the birth. Albeit a fictional scenario, it's the type of thing that, if real, would really show how self interest trumps morality. the self interest of everyone not wanting to die horrifically.

Other examples would be the horror movie Cabin in the Woods which, spoiler alert, turned out to be orchestrated by a group of people attempting to keep the old gods from getting angry and wiping out the planet. the survivors let them wake up anyways, but I wonder how the rest of the world would feel about that if true, likely a number would feel it would've been better to let a few people die every year or so to preserver the rest, or more accurately, themselves,

In the first case the entire thing becomes irrelevant and is up to personal whims which still equals subjectivity.

What is the "entire thing" that becomes irrelevant? Logic itself? But then arguments cannot prove subjectivity through reason...which would render the above sentence as irrelevant as it is attempting to apply logic.

Seems then the worst case scenario is that objectivity of morality, as well as everything else we'd like to argue about, would become fundamentally mysterian. For example proofs about the properties of triangles becomes worthless, but that doesn't mean the triangle [by necessity lacks those properties].

Of course the last sentence shows the problem with accepting logic isn't objective, as it cuts into things like the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which has provided us with an incredible amount of applicative power. And that gets into the way proofs are arrived at, at times, by disposition - feelings of moving toward Truth that mirror moral movements in some aspects.