What IS Morality?

From here.

Mesk:
What makes you think that the notion that all evolutionary processes are good is a premise for Dawkins? I've seen nothing in his writing to suggest this; indeed, in The Selfish Gene, he states that, "We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators [i.e. our genes]" and urges us, "Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish". In other words, Dawkins clearly believes that humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage.

Well, then what is Dawkin's using as a premise to judge "good" from "bad" and why would this premise be justified? Keep in mind that the concepts of ""good" and "bad" and our ability to judge "good" from "bad" is programmed into us through RM+NS. What is the purpose of "good" verses "bad" in an RM+NS scenerio?

As well, why does he believe that we should "try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish?" Is selfishness bad? Is generosity good?

Furthermore, is Dawkin's meme that "humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage" a result of RM+NS evolutionary heritage? Is this meme "good" or is it "bad." Is it something we objectively "ought to" do as opposed to something we objectively "ought not" do. One should be able to notice that this meme is self-defeating given accidental, purposeless RM+NS as a premise.

I requote myself from my first comment on this post:

"Well, then we'll have to first start off by examining what is "bad." If we are looking at the concept of "bad" from the vantage point of a purposeless universe which created the concept in question through a random process filtered by reproductive success and surviveability, then I'm sure we can judge "badness" as that which would hinder reproductive success and suriveability. But of course, this does not deal with "bad" in the sense of being that which we objectively "ought not" do (as C.S. Lewis put it).

If the above is truly the case, the "good" and "bad" would be merely subjective constraints agreed upon by those who wish for evolution to continue. Obviously, though, this wish itself — that of evolution continuing — must be ASSUMED to be "good" or something that "ought" to happen, since I see no reasonable way to judge this wish as "good" or "bad" itslelf — as in something that objectively "ought" to or "ought not" to happen. If the process of evolution occured non-purposefully, then it just occured. Evolution itself would be neither good nor bad, and reducing everything to its essential core, would then compel us to realize that anything resulting from evolution is neither good nor bad."

If you have a better way of defining and judging "good" from "bad," in a purposeless universe which created life in an accidental, purposeless, RM+NS scenario, please lay it out for me.

Mesk:

Bradford:
The difficulty with an NS paradigm lies with its capacity to explain everything and nothing at the same time. Whatever moral precepts exist among humans is traceable to NS causality. But that renders NS an ad hoc explanatory device providing little guidance as to actual prediction indicators.

I agree that this can be a major problem - just look at the appalling state of evolutionary psychology for a damning example of how easy it is to lose sight of the evidence in the search for a useful paradigm. However, evolutionary hypotheses regarding the origins of morality can and have been tested empirically. For instance, this recent paper in Science used data from genetic analyses of hunter-gatherer societies, together with mathematical modelling, to explore whether group selection hypotheses for the origins of altruism are feasible. This is not something that could ever be done for religious explanations of morality.

Mesk, sure there's an explanation for altruism, but not for an objective morality (if such a thing actually exists.) — refer to my last comment. Morality is what judges altruism as either objectively "good" or "bad."

Furthermore, it seems that this paper only tells us that altruism does indeed benefit survival and that people were indeed altruistic in the past.

What does this tell us about what we "ought" to do?

Furthermore doesn't Dawkins tell us that humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage?

Is altruism any less of an evolutionary heritage than selfish genes?

Mesk:
I agree that there is an important distinction between explaining the origins of morality, and deciding what is moral. Evolutionary theory can help us address the first question, but we must turn elsewhere for guidance on the second. I briefly lay out the basis for my own moral system[:]

Well, to some extent all moral systems are arbitrary, in that we have no completely objective way of deciding whether or not they are correct. Even theists rest their morality on subjective interpretations of religious texts, interpretations that change over time and vary substantially between individuals. Certainly there are core moral beliefs of (say) Christianity that are the same now as they were two millennia ago - but by and large these are core moral beliefs shared independently by the rest of humanity (thou shalt not murder, steal, lie, etc.). Most non-theists would argue that the universal nature of these core beliefs suggest that they are the products of biological and cultural evolution occurring during the long evolutionary history shared by all humanity.

As for me personally, I generally adopt a fairly utilitarian approach to morality - I try to act in such a way as to minimise suffering and maximise happiness. I see this system as being similar to religious moral guidance in that it is simply a formalisation of near-universal human moral rules, but I believe it to be less arbitrary than any religious system I know of (in that it is largely unfettered by the illogical taboos that have accreted around the moral rules of all major religions).

Ultimately, I act morally and urge others to act morally because I wish to gain the benefits of a large and productive society, and a functioning society requires that all of its individuals are constrained by rules restricting their behaviour so as not to harm or disrupt the lives of their fellow citizens.

Of course, my moral system is still a work in progress: it still contains some inconsistencies, and there are areas (such as abortion) where I am deeply conflicted. However, I believe it provides me with a reasonable guide to acting and behaving morally. In addition, because my morality arises from thinking carefully through the logic of different positions, I trust it more than I ever could the largely pre-fabricated moral systems derived from the theistic religions.

BTW, morality as expounded by Jesus is as follows: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself." Absolutely no unnecessary religious baggage.

Mesk:

CJYman:
Furthermore doesn't Dawkins tell us that "humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage"?

Is altruism any less of an evolutionary heritage than selfish genes?

Read him in context: he isn't saying we need to overthrow every part of our evolutionary past, but rather that there are aspects of our evolutionary heritage
that can and should be discarded. I think pretty much everyone would agree that altruism is one trait that would be useful to keep around.

And one final post for today: how does the quote from Jesus explain what the Christian position is with respect to gay marriage? Embryonic stem cell therapy? Organ donation? In vitro fertilisation? Environmental destruction? And so on…

It's a neat little quote, but it doesn't really capture Christian morality in practice, or the complexities of moral reasoning in general.

Mesk:
I agree that there is an important distinction between explaining the origins of morality, and deciding what is moral. Evolutionary theory can help us address the first question, but we must turn elsewhere for guidance on the second. I briefly lay out the basis for my own moral system [...]

The origin of morality is explicitly and perfectly connected to deciding what is moral. If morality is a product of a purposeless, natural process which describes that which is useful for survival and reproductive benefit, then morality is not an objective law of "good" vs. "bad."

CJYman:
Furthermore doesn't Dawkins tell us that humanity can and should overcome its evolutionary heritage?

Is altruism any less of an evolutionary heritage than selfish genes?

Mesk:
Read him in context: he isn't saying we need to overthrow every part of our evolutionary past, but rather that there are aspects of our evolutionary heritage that can and should be discarded. I think pretty much everyone would agree that altruism is one trait that would be useful to keep around.

So, then morality is judged by that which is useful?

Mesk, when selfishness (as a part of our evolutionary heritage) was useful for survival and reproductive success was it either "good" or "bad"?

Is altruism (as a part of our evolutionary heritage) only "good" because it is now useful for survival and reproductive success?

And where did this notion of morality come from anyway?

Mesk:
And one final post for today: how does the quote from Jesus explain what the Christian position is with respect to gay marriage? Embryonic stem cell therapy? Organ donation? In vitro fertilisation? Environmental destruction? And so on…

It's a neat little quote, but it doesn't really capture Christian morality in practice, or the complexities of moral reasoning in general.

If moral reasoning is a complex issue, it is only so because it is an objective standard (with its foundation in ultimate reality) that humanity is attmepting to understand and attain. In order for it to be this objective standard of "good" vs. "bad", it can not arise out of that purposeless process which supposedly causes electro-chemical impulses within our brain for the purpose of our evolutionary survival and reproductive success. As already shown, that which arises out of a purposeless process is netiher "good" nor "bad." What could be less complex than "everyone gets to make their own moral rules?"

If the above is understood, then we can actually attempt to discover what the objective moral code is. If it is grounded in loving the Ultimate Reality and the Ultimate Reality tells us to love others as ourselves, then we at least have a starting point when discussing morality. Our start point would then be "which actions show true love?" Of course, love would need to be defined, but at least we are getting somewhere in understanding an actually objective morality.