morality and Darwin

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

morality and Darwin

Post by iambiguous »

Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have… evolved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Endless forms, indeed: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161

"The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.

But the vast majority have not been identified - and cataloguing them all could take more than 1,000 years."


And that's not even counting all of countless species that have gone extinct.

But one thing we can be certain of is that not one of those species comes even remotely close to our own when we speak of concocting "moral theories".

And then [given my own assumptions] the great gaps that exist between moral theory and actual rules of behavior.
“Moral concepts are embodied in and partially constitutive of forms of social life.” Alasdair MacIntyre, Short History of Ethics
And moral practices? What are they embodied in if not hundreds and hundreds of years of actual/factual human history itself? Countless cultures around the globe evolving over the centuries given the parameters of what Karl Marx called "political economy"
Darwin had an evolutionary view of ethics ‘from the side of natural history’ which connects with MacIntyre’s insight into morality’s connections with social life.
Of course, the thing about focusing in on Darwin here is that we are immediately confronted with the enormous complexities embedded in human interactions in which we are never quite certain where nature ends and nurture begins. Where genes segue into memes.
This article will show how Darwin argued in The Descent of Man that the moral sense evolved from a combination of social instincts and well-developed mental powers. If this is so, moral philosophers will need to pay more attention to Darwin’s views, and in response, rethink morality along naturalistic lines. The result, I suggest, can be a rich concept of moral intelligence.
Social instincts and well-developed mental powers. On the other hand, when it comes down to "particular contexts" I suspect that will still revolve largely around whether a moral philosopher is "one of us" or "one of them".

Here are my own views on morality:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon Jan 24, 2022 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Lacewing »

Yes, beautiful. There is far more perfectly at work in nature than man's ego can tolerate.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

When you compare human behaviour with that of other animals then our so-called 'morality' doesn't really amount to much...

Kindness, empathy and compassion are not unique to humans. 'Morality' is a religious concept. Most of what humans have considered 'immoral' have been kristian constructs, usually involving misogny and sex (no surprised there).
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by iambiguous »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:00 pm When you compare human behaviour with that of other animals then our so-called 'morality' doesn't really amount to much...
And yet, unlike with other species, it is precisely at the point where moral narratives and political agendas come into conflict among those in the human species, that the most human pain and suffering is engendered. There it can amount to everything.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:00 pmKindness, empathy and compassion are not unique to humans. 'Morality' is a religious concept. Most of what humans have considered 'immoral' have been kristian constructs, usually involving misogny and sex (no surprised there).
Yes, but Kindness, empathy and compassion in other species is rooted far, far more in biological imperatives, in instinct, in drives. In nature. With our species nurture becomes equally important in any number of contexts.

And, from my frame of mind, morality revolves first and foremost around the absolute necessity to create and then sustain "rules of behavior" in any community. And this will then revolve around one or another historical/cultural combination of "might makes right", "right makes might" and/or "moderation, negotiation and compromise".
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by popeye1945 »

Some attribute morality to religious experience, but one must remember that religion itself is a biological creation, a biological extension. In my opinion, a great deal of strife between differing cultures is due mainly to the fact that they base their morality on different myths. Again these myths are biological creations, extensions of peoples in differing countries under differing circumstances. What they amount to are failed sciences, for myths are intended to give the individual orientation in the world, and to the mysteries of life, obviously today they are quite useless. They are a source of confusion and alienation between peoples and cultures. What is needed is morality based upon the human condition, a morality based upon our common biology. This world has but one biology, and that is carbon-based biology. If we are ever to save this world from human devastation we need to hold sacred life in all its forms, a morality aware that all sentient beings experience suffering and joy, this is a morality base on a common biology. Think about it, isn't it the natural centre for any proposed morality, what could possible make more sense. It is a harsh world, life lives upon life, but human beings aware of the nature of the world cannot remain indifferent to suffering and call themselves civilized. Morality matters because life matters.
Last edited by popeye1945 on Tue Apr 19, 2022 10:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm But one thing we can be certain of is that not one of those species comes even remotely close to our own when we speak of concocting "moral theories".

And then [given my own assumptions] the great gaps that exist between moral theory and actual rules of behavior.
The Newtonian (reductionist, mechanical) and Darwinian (ecological, pragmatic) paradigms are incommensurable.

If an extinction event for the human species is not deemed as the most immoral phenomenon possible, then all other moral theories are bunk. If all humans dying all at once is not immoral, then one human dying in the hands of another cannot be immoral.

Step 1 towards developing a morality: figuring out that the most immoral entity is nature itself. The arrow of time. Far more humans are killed by natural causes than by other humans.
Step 2 towards developing a morality: If avoiding extinction and combatting entropy is a shared human goal, then humans are your friends, not your enemy.

That's why we are social creatures. Strength in numbers. Cooperation. Division of labour. Scientific and technological progress. Going multi-planetary. All of those things reduce the risk of an extinction event.

The rules of behavior have one particular purpose. To reduce violent rivalry, to enable trust-based, not fear-based interaction amongst humans. There can be no such things as cooperation between opponents.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm But one thing we can be certain of is that not one of those species comes even remotely close to our own when we speak of concocting "moral theories".

And then [given my own assumptions] the great gaps that exist between moral theory and actual rules of behavior.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:38 am
If an extinction event for the human species is not deemed as the most immoral phenomenon possible, then all other moral theories are bunk. If all humans dying all at once is not immoral, then one human dying in the hands of another cannot be immoral.
What on Earth would "immoral" mean if the next "extinction event" wiped out the human species? With no minds around to contemplate morality [or anything else], there needs to be a God to make it intelligible at all. Unless perhaps there are other intelligent life forms "out there" who come to be aware of our extinction. But since it was a "natural" event -- a huge asteroid say -- morality would seem moot.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:38 amStep 1 towards developing a morality: figuring out that the most immoral entity is nature itself. The arrow of time. Far more humans are killed by natural causes than by other humans.
How can nature be immoral? There would have to be a teleological component "behind" it. Which, of course, most call God.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:38 amStep 2 towards developing a morality: If avoiding extinction and combatting entropy is a shared human goal, then humans are your friends, not your enemy.

That's why we are social creatures. Strength in numbers. Cooperation. Division of labour. Scientific and technological progress. Going multi-planetary. All of those things reduce the risk of an extinction event.

The rules of behavior have one particular purpose. To reduce violent rivalry, to enable trust-based, not fear-based interaction amongst humans. There can be no such things as cooperation between opponents.
All well and good as what I call a "general description intellectual contraption".

But, given a particular context and a particular set of "conflicting goods", how, for all practical purposes, would this developing morality unfold?
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:25 pm What on Earth would "immoral" mean if the next "extinction event" wiped out the human species? With no minds around to contemplate morality [or anything else], there needs to be a God to make it intelligible at all. Unless perhaps there are other intelligent life forms "out there" who come to be aware of our extinction. But since it was a "natural" event -- a huge asteroid say -- morality would seem moot.
You seem to agree then? For morality to exists - humans need to exist. Ergo the extinction of humans would be the end of morality.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:25 pm How can nature be immoral? There would have to be a teleological component "behind" it. Which, of course, most call God.
Why is a teleological component necessary? You are failing at basic deduction.

If nature can't be immoral and humans are part of nature then humans can't be immoral.

If humans can't be immoral - what the hell are you talking about when you talk about "morality"?

iambiguous wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:25 pm But, given a particular context and a particular set of "conflicting goods", how, for all practical purposes, would this developing morality unfold?
"Conflicting goods" is an oxymoron. Goods compound, but they don't conflict. If I do my good over here and you do your good over there - no conflict occurs.

You have to work really hard to manufacture conflict.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by RCSaunders »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:02 pm Yes, beautiful. There is far more perfectly at work in nature than man's ego can tolerate.
You don't seem to have any problem with your ego.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:25 pm What on Earth would "immoral" mean if the next "extinction event" wiped out the human species? With no minds around to contemplate morality [or anything else], there needs to be a God to make it intelligible at all. Unless perhaps there are other intelligent life forms "out there" who come to be aware of our extinction. But since it was a "natural" event -- a huge asteroid say -- morality would seem moot.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 8:08 am You seem to agree then? For morality to exists - humans need to exist. Ergo the extinction of humans would be the end of morality.
Yeah. That seems reasonable to me. No humans and it would seem to come down to whether or not a God/the God exists.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:25 pm How can nature be immoral? There would have to be a teleological component "behind" it. Which, of course, most call God.
Why is a teleological component necessary? You are failing at basic deduction.
A basic deduction here being what you deduce it is?

Trust me, I get that part.

Clearly, if human beings "somehow" acquired the capacity to deduce of their own free will as a result of lifeless matter evolving into living matter evolving into us, then there came to exist the possibility of thinking that maybe there is a meaning or a purpose behind our existence. Which, again, most subsume in God.

Bur with no God and "the big one" wiping out the human species in its entirety, then nature itself either does have an ultimate meaning and purpose or it doesn't.

It's got to be one or the other, right?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 8:08 am If nature can't be immoral and humans are part of nature then humans can't be immoral.
Huh? We don't know if nature can be or cannot be either moral or immoral because we don't have a comprehensive understanding of existence itself. We are a part of nature but what on earth does that mean in terms of grappling with human existence, existence itself and teleology. Assuming a No God universe.
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 8:08 am If humans can't be immoral - what the hell are you talking about when you talk about "morality"?
Once again, this is you completely misconstruing what you think I am arguing here. Within particular communities, individual men and women come to their own subjective conclusions about morality out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Which I root existentially in dasein and you essentially in trends.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Mar 06, 2022 7:25 pm But, given a particular context and a particular set of "conflicting goods", how, for all practical purposes, would this developing morality unfold?
Skepdick wrote: Mon Mar 07, 2022 8:08 am "Conflicting goods" is an oxymoron. Goods compound, but they don't conflict. If I do my good over here and you do your good over there - no conflict occurs.

You have to work really hard to manufacture conflict.
Unbelievable. There are dozens and dozens of moral and political conflicts all around us. And they have been around now for literally thousands of years.

The latest "big one" is the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

So, where's the part where there are no conflicts occurring either over the invasion itself or in how we should respond to Putin in order to possibly end it?

We unequivocally have a "failure to communicate" here. And, I suspect, probably all the way to the grave.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Yeah. That seems reasonable to me. No humans and it would seem to come down to whether or not a God/the God exists.
Zero need for God. You are mixing up the a priori and a posteriori perspectives.

iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Clearly, if human beings "somehow" acquired the capacity to deduce of their own free will as a result of lifeless matter evolving into living matter evolving into us, then there came to exist the possibility of thinking that maybe there is a meaning or a purpose behind our existence. Which, again, most subsume in God.

Bur with no God and "the big one" wiping out the human species in its entirety, then nature itself either does have an ultimate meaning and purpose or it doesn't.

It's got to be one or the other, right?
Fuck nature. Fuck God. This is about self-preservation in a hostile environment.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Huh? We don't know if nature can be or cannot be either moral or immoral because we don't have a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
You are the one who asked the question "How can nature be immoral?"
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am We are a part of nature but what on earth does that mean in terms of grappling with human existence, existence itself and teleology. Assuming a No God universe.
Nothing. If killing stuff en masse is natural then genocide is natural. It's because nihilism is true is why morality is humanly necessary.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Once again, this is you completely misconstruing what you think I am arguing here. Within particular communities, individual men and women come to their own subjective conclusions about morality out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Which I root existentially in dasein and you essentially in trends.
You can root it in whatever you want. I am simply pointing out that if the extinction of all is not immoral, then the murder of one is not immoral.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Unbelievable. There are dozens and dozens of moral and political conflicts all around us. And they have been around now for literally thousands of years.

The latest "big one" is the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Yes. There are dozens and dozend of conflicts around us. But you said conflicting goods.

I am trying to understand which part of dictatorial invasion and military occupation of a sovreign state under false pretenses you consider to be a "good".
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am So, where's the part where there are no conflicts occurring either over the invasion itself or in how we should respond to Putin in order to possibly end it?
Do you actually understand the difference between asserting THAT X is morally wrong; and preventing X from occurring.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am We unequivocally have a "failure to communicate" here. And, I suspect, probably all the way to the grave.
We? No. It's just you. You are miscommunicating with yourself. How shall we say... you have an internal conflict going on.

Because I know how to play the framing game too. I just label any two mutually exclusive outcomes as "conflicting good" and boom! Point made.

So what about the conflicting goods of nature wanting to extinct us and we wanting to live? If you are going to keep insisting that human extinction is not immoral, then why would Ukrainians even object to being murdered? Morality is made up subjective nonsense anyway.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Yeah. That seems reasonable to me. No humans and it would seem to come down to whether or not a God/the God exists.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 amZero need for God. You are mixing up the a priori and a posteriori perspectives.
No humans and no God? And no other intelligent life forms throughout the entire universe...multiverse?

Now that's simply mind-boggling to contemplate. At least for us here and now.

But God is crucial for us in regard to morality. And that's because with an omniscient God there is no question that He knows you have sinned. And given omnipotence there is no question of you being judged and punished for it.

With God there is both immortality and salvation. And without Him?
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Clearly, if human beings "somehow" acquired the capacity to deduce of their own free will as a result of lifeless matter evolving into living matter evolving into us, then there came to exist the possibility of thinking that maybe there is a meaning or a purpose behind our existence. Which, again, most subsume in God.

Bur with no God and "the big one" wiping out the human species in its entirety, then nature itself either does have an ultimate meaning and purpose or it doesn't.

It's got to be one or the other, right?
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 amFuck nature. Fuck God. This is about self-preservation in a hostile environment.
Right, like saying "fuck them" makes my points go away. After all, in a No God world where the laws of nature reflect the brute facticity of an ultimately amoral human condition, self-preservation becomes just another existential contraption rooted in dasein. It means different things to different people out in particular worlds understood in different ways.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Huh? We don't know if nature can be or cannot be either moral or immoral because we don't have a comprehensive understanding of existence itself.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 amYou are the one who asked the question "How can nature be immoral?"
Yeah, in a No God world. If nature just is what it is with no meaning and purpose behind it how can it be thought of as either moral or immoral. The real question then is whether human beings themselves are just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am We are a part of nature but what on earth does that mean in terms of grappling with human existence, existence itself and teleology. Assuming a No God universe.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 amNothing. If killing stuff en masse is natural then genocide is natural. It's because nihilism is true is why morality is humanly necessary.
Well, since human beings are a part of nature, how can anything they are able to actually do physically be called unnatural? And Nietzsche's whole point re the "death of God" is to suggest why mere mortals are left with no choice but to come up with their own rules of behaviors. Which I then root in ever evolving historical and cultural and interpersonal interaction out in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. In dasein. And which Nietzsche reconfigured "philosophically" into the Übermensch and the "will to power". No God? Well at least you can be a master rather than a slave.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Once again, this is you completely misconstruing what you think I am arguing here. Within particular communities, individual men and women come to their own subjective conclusions about morality out in a particular world understood in a particular way. Which I root existentially in dasein and you essentially in trends.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 amYou can root it in whatever you want. I am simply pointing out that if the extinction of all is not immoral, then the murder of one is not immoral.
Again, with No God, if the Big One does smash into Earth killing off the human species who is left to squabble over whether it was is moral or immoral?

And, to the sociopaths among us, morality itself is entirely rooted in "me, myself and I". And if murdering someone is necessary if it sustains what he or she perceives to be in their own best interest then in a No God world all the rest of us combined can claim it is immoral, and it doesn't make it immoral for him or her.

God here is absolutely essential in my view.
iambiguous wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:09 am Unbelievable. There are dozens and dozens of moral and political conflicts all around us. And they have been around now for literally thousands of years.

The latest "big one" is the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Skepdick wrote: Tue Mar 08, 2022 7:42 amYes. There are dozens and dozend of conflicts around us. But you said conflicting goods.

I am trying to understand which part of dictatorial invasion and military occupation of a sovreign state under false pretenses you consider to be a "good".
If Putin himself is a sociopath the only reason he needs to do anything he wants is that it pleases him to do it. And that he has the power to sustain it. The invasion is good for him and for those who back him. End of story in a No God world.

What are you going to do, tap him on the shoulder and insist that the historical trends "prove" that what he is doing is immoral?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm Darwin On Moral Intelligence
Vincent di Norcia applies his mental powers to Darwin’s moral theory.
“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have… evolved.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Endless forms, indeed: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14616161

"The natural world contains about 8.7 million species, according to a new estimate described by scientists as the most accurate ever.

But the vast majority have not been identified - and cataloguing them all could take more than 1,000 years."


And that's not even counting all of countless species that have gone extinct.

But one thing we can be certain of is that not one of those species comes even remotely close to our own when we speak of concocting "moral theories".

And then [given my own assumptions] the great gaps that exist between moral theory and actual rules of behavior.
“Moral concepts are embodied in and partially constitutive of forms of social life.” Alasdair MacIntyre, Short History of Ethics
And moral practices? What are they embodied in if not hundreds and hundreds of years of actual/factual human history itself? Countless cultures around the globe evolving over the centuries given the parameters of what Karl Marx called "political economy"
Darwin had an evolutionary view of ethics ‘from the side of natural history’ which connects with MacIntyre’s insight into morality’s connections with social life.
Of course, the thing about focusing in on Darwin here is that we are immediately confronted with the enormous complexities embedded in human interactions in which we are never quite certain where nature ends and nurture begins. Where genes segue into memes.
BUT 'we' do KNOW.

It is just the 'we' that varies here.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm
This article will show how Darwin argued in The Descent of Man that the moral sense evolved from a combination of social instincts and well-developed mental powers. If this is so, moral philosophers will need to pay more attention to Darwin’s views, and in response, rethink morality along naturalistic lines. The result, I suggest, can be a rich concept of moral intelligence.
Social instincts and well-developed mental powers. On the other hand, when it comes down to "particular contexts" I suspect that will still revolve largely around whether a moral philosopher is "one of us" or "one of them".
What is the DIFFERENCE between 'us' AND 'them'?

And, in fact, who and what is 'us' and who and what is 'them'?

While we are at it, who and what is a so-called "moral philosopher"?

By the way, 'moral Truth', which NO human being EVER could REFUTE, existed WAY BEFORE ANY 'moral theory' came into Existence. And, that 'moral Truth' STILL exists within 'you', human beings. 'you' just need to learn how to FIND and SEE this Truth to UNDERSTAND 'It'.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 4:38 pm Here are my own views on morality:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175121
When adult human beings learn how to live in True Peace and Harmony, and are doing so, then the women of future generations will NOT get pregnant when they do NOT want a child. So, NO abortions. AND, men will NOT rape women NOR get woman pregnant when BOTH do NOT want to have AND raise a child, TOGETHER. Therefore, NO 'need' for abortion EITHER.

So, NO 'need' ALSO for ANY one to provide their OWN PERSONAL 'views' on things like 'abortion'.
Skepdick
Posts: 14362
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by Skepdick »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am But God is crucial for us in regard to morality. And that's because with an omniscient God there is no question that He knows you have sinned.
God is a social construct. Exactly like morality. In so far as I am concerned the two terms/concepts are synonymous.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am And given omnipotence there is no question of you being judged and punished for it.
I will bow before no "omnipotence" which idly watches while humans go extinct. In its own words "Evil prospers while Good does nothing".
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am Right, like saying "fuck them" makes my points go away. After all, in a No God world where the laws of nature reflect the brute facticity of an ultimately amoral human condition, self-preservation becomes just another existential contraption rooted in dasein. It means different things to different people out in particular worlds understood in different ways.
OK... Fuck dasein too. When you die your point goes away with you.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am Yeah, in a No God world. If nature just is what it is with no meaning and purpose behind it how can it be thought of as either moral or immoral.
If nature just is what it is with no meaning and purpose behind it how can it be thought of in terms of "dasein"?

Trivially: thoughts are merely instrumental.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am The real question then is whether human beings themselves are just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.
So what? Now that we are here what else is there to do?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am Well, since human beings are a part of nature, how can anything they are able to actually do physically be called unnatural? And Nietzsche's whole point re the "death of God" is to suggest why mere mortals are left with no choice but to come up with their own rules of behaviors. Which I then root in ever evolving historical and cultural and interpersonal interaction out in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. In dasein. And which Nietzsche reconfigured "philosophically" into the Übermensch and the "will to power". No God? Well at least you can be a master rather than a slave.
In a world awash in contingency, chance and change dasein is contingent, probabilistic and changing.

You've abandoned the old "god" and you've embraced your new god - dasein. It's just another manifestation of symbolism. No better, or worse than the previous manifestations of symbolism.

All of them suffering the same, fatal flaw - they are abstract ideas grounded in nothing.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am Again, with No God, if the Big One does smash into Earth killing off the human species who is left to squabble over whether it was is moral or immoral?
We are. Before it happens.

Surely you are capable of thinking about the future while still being in the present?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am And, to the sociopaths among us, morality itself is entirely rooted in "me, myself and I". And if murdering someone is necessary if it sustains what he or she perceives to be in their own best interest then in a No God world all the rest of us combined can claim it is immoral, and it doesn't make it immoral for him or her.

God here is absolutely essential in my view.
God doesn't solve anything. If my God tells me to murder followers of other Gods we are right back to square one.

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am If Putin himself is a sociopath the only reason he needs to do anything he wants is that it pleases him to do it. And that he has the power to sustain it.
The invasion is good for him and for those who back him. End of story in a No God world.
Yeah but time hasn't stopped. The story hasn't come to an end - it's still being written.

Russia is being brought to its economic knees. They are losing the propaganda war. They have already lost the culture war - their youngsters are emigrating to democratic countries. The empire is dying - the dictator has lost power. It's just a matter of time now.

Which is precisely what happens in a God world, no? The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am What are you going to do, tap him on the shoulder and insist that the historical trends "prove" that what he is doing is immoral?
I think now is a very good time to revisit the possibility that you really may be stupid. Objectively.

Because I am tired of repeating that history doesn't prove anything.

History unfolds the way it unfolds (the future becomes better and better for more and more people) because morality is objective!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7208
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: morality and Darwin

Post by iambiguous »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am But God is crucial for us in regard to morality. And that's because with an omniscient God there is no question that He knows you have sinned.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:46 pmGod is a social construct. Exactly like morality. In so far as I am concerned the two terms/concepts are synonymous.
Yes, the two "terms and concepts" seem clearly to be rooted in actual human interaction down through the ages historically and across the globe culturally. And then in how each of us as individuals "thrown" at birth out into a particular world "beyond our control" might come to understand them in profoundly different ways.

Thus the assumption I make that there is no demonstrably objective existence/truth able to be pinned down regarding either one. It's largely rooted in dasein.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am And given omnipotence there is no question of you being judged and punished for it.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:46 pm I will bow before no "omnipotence" which idly watches while humans go extinct. In its own words "Evil prospers while Good does nothing".
Right. Like if there actually is an omnipotent God "up there", He really gives a shit about you not bowing down to Him. And what on earth can a mere mortal know of Evil next to an omniscient God. Besides, even most religious folks will admit it all comes down to a "leap of faith". Or a "wager".

And that too in my view is the embodiment of dasein. Though, no doubt, you will never bow down to that either.

Just as any number of religious folks will never bow down to Darwin.

Fuck God! Fuck dasein!!

And for those who won't go that far? Well, they are "idiots" aren't they?
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am If nature just is what it is with no meaning and purpose behind it how can it be thought of as either moral or immoral.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:46 pm Trivially: thoughts are merely instrumental.
Sure, like the thoughts coursing through Vladimor Putin's head right now are "merely instrumental" to the folks in Ukraine. And, in the event of nuclear war, "merely instrumental" to all the rest of us.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am The real question then is whether human beings themselves are just another inherent manifestation of a wholly determined universe.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:46 pm So what? Now that we are here what else is there to do?
Yeah, that's pretty much how I would expect you to react. And, with any luck [for you], you really are not able to post anything other than what the laws of nature compel you to.
iambiguous wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 6:43 am Well, since human beings are a part of nature, how can anything they are able to actually do physically be called unnatural? And Nietzsche's whole point re the "death of God" is to suggest why mere mortals are left with no choice but to come up with their own rules of behaviors. Which I then root in ever evolving historical and cultural and interpersonal interaction out in a world awash in contingency, chance and change. In dasein. And which Nietzsche reconfigured "philosophically" into the Übermensch and the "will to power". No God? Well at least you can be a master rather than a slave.
Skepdick wrote: Wed Mar 09, 2022 12:46 pm You've abandoned the old "god" and you've embraced your new god - dasein. It's just another manifestation of symbolism. No better, or worse than the previous manifestations of symbolism.
Right. I mean what's the difference between and all knowing and all powerful "old God" and a fractured and fragmented mere mortal as the subjective, existential embodiment of dasein.

And not just "symbolically". But, well, for real! Which to the best of knowledge is actually grounded not in nothing but in something. Like for example the actual lives we live.

Though, okay, because I don't think exactly like you do about all this that proves that I am "stupid". A stupid "idiot" in fact.

Shades of The New ILP, he noted. 8)
Post Reply