ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , consciousness

Reply
Old Yesterday, 12:36 AM   #1561
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
This link doesn’t contradict the argument. Evolution favours traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce. It endows social species’ with qualities which include bonding, cooperation, reciprocity and awareness of the social rules of the group. These innate qualities form the basis of our morality.

Quote:
Competition (and therefore natural selection) within a species tends to be much higher than between species, since they will be directly competing for all resources as well as mates.
To a degree! But generally it is between different tribes (or packs) within the same species. Otherwise the advantages of being members of a group would not obtain. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from rival tribes. Being part of group improves the chances of finding food, e.g. among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.

Quote:
This is true, but realize that those "morals", will not be a single set of morals, but a whole collection of different morals, many of which will be diametrically opposed to each other.
These will not be “opposed to each other” to the extent that group cohesion is threatened; this would be contrary to our instinctive nature as social animals.

Quote:
That is the survival of the individual and its descendants, not the survival species though.
It’s both, but the survival of the species is a by-product.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.

Last edited by Tassman; Yesterday at 12:38 AM.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:14 AM   #1562
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Correct, but primarily at the social level not at the biological level.


It’s collaboration at the socio-biology level NOT at the level of the species’ biological evolution. Sociobiology is based on the assumption that social behaviour has resulted from the existing evolutionary organism; it attempts to explain social behaviour within that existing context.


I’ve never said that...this is your straw man. My emphasis is on the enforcement of human rights over and above the primitive notion of tribalism. This is a modern concept which nonetheless requires enforcing, which is a long way from your attribution of egalitarian collaboration to me.


Moses and most of tribal humanity would also “die laughing” at the notion of equal human rights. But, unlike chimpanzees, humans have the natural intelligence to move beyond the instinctive tribal rivalries that beset humanity for so long. Hence the UDHR, which was an enlightened product of the development of this natural intelligence.


Nope! I just corrected your mistaken equating of Evolutionary Darwinism with the "Social Darwinism" of Herbert Spencer, which is a perversion of Charles Darwin’s theory.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-Darwinism

BTW: It would be polite to address me directly, NOT via another person.
I don’t understand what are you saying.

First of all, I don’t know if you realize that the UDHR defends an egalitarian system of rights. If you are defending the UDHR you are defending an egalitarian system of collaboration. You seem recognizing that such a kind of collaboration doesn’t exist among animals neither in the first millenniums of human history. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law.

If egalitarian collaboration, as the basis of moral, were a natural law it needn’t any supplementary enforcement. Natural laws execute themselves without any voluntary effort. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law.

I ask myself if you have read Darwin’s quote that I have put in my previous comment. I repeat it: “there must in every case be a struggle for existence, either one individual with another of the same species, or with the individuals of distinct species, or with the physical conditions of life”. I insist, the struggle for life exists at every level of life, species and individual included. Of course, collaboration between individuals also exists in Nature, but not at higher levels as species and not egalitarian. This is a strong indication that your egalitarian collaboration, that is to say moral, is not a biological law.

Moreover, egalitarian collaboration doesn’t exist in the contemporary world neither. The incomplete list of current conflicts that I linked in my previous comment is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration is not a fact neither a biological law. Neither a social law, but a moral aspiration of many human beings. Of course that it is not a moral aspiration of many others.

If the evolutionary advantages of a politic/moral system would be without discussion we wouldn’t need to discuss it. In the facts, the superiority for survival of (relative) egalitarian societies is not warranted by historical facts. Thus has not only happen in the past but some current egalitarian societies have regressed towards totalitarian regimes and notwithstanding formal claims of our respected leaders there is not any guarantee that the whole humanity cannot regress under adverse circumstances. Naive confidence in linear progress has been refuted many times and everywhere.

Conclusion: moral requirements of egalitarian collaboration are not sustainable in natural laws. They are a different kind of exigences that we call moral and need a constant effort of human will to implement them. Biology has nothing to do with freedom. History do.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:29 AM   #1563
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Thank you Tommy

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
This link doesn’t contradict the argument. Evolution favours traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce. It endows social species’ with qualities which include bonding, cooperation, reciprocity and awareness of the social rules of the group. These innate qualities form the basis of our morality.
You left out qualities like deception, cheating, killing, stealing etc.
These are to the advantage of the individual, never the group. The good of the group only becomes relevant when it is to the advantage of the individual.
Google "tactical deception in primates". The individual will always try to cheat the group. Cheating might come at a cost, as a cheater caught at cheating will face repercussions from the group, but this only drives evolution to find a better cheater so as not to be caught.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
To a degree! But generally it is between different tribes (or packs) within the same species. Otherwise the advantages of being members of a group would not obtain. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from rival tribes. Being part of group improves the chances of finding food, e.g. among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.
Competition "between tribes" and the "advantages of being members of a group" arises as a secondary result due to competition and natural selection between individuals and only if it advantages the individual.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
These will not be “opposed to each other” to the extent that group cohesion is threatened; this would be contrary to our instinctive nature as social animals.
Then why do social animals, more than any other, cheat and deceive each other instead of always cooperating. Cooperating will always be better for the group.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:45 AM   #1564
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Evolution and natural selection in social animals will favor individuals which are better at cooperating withing sight of the group and at the same time better at concealing deception from the group.
Those are conflicting morals.

Just look at people.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; Yesterday at 01:51 AM.
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:20 AM   #1565
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by David Mo
If egalitarian collaboration, as the basis of moral, were a natural law it needn’t any supplementary enforcement. Natural laws execute themselves without any voluntary effort. This is a strong indication that egalitarian collaboration or moral is not a natural law.
Indeed, no way around this.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:05 AM   #1566
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post



You left out qualities like deception, cheating, killing, stealing etc.
These are to the advantage of the individual, never the group. The good of the group only becomes relevant when it is to the advantage of the individual.
Google "tactical deception in primates". The individual will always try to cheat the group. Cheating might come at a cost, as a cheater caught at cheating will face repercussions from the group, but this only drives evolution to find a better cheater so as not to be caught
Morality developed in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups, important because humans are social animals. We primates will always try to cheat, which is why justice systems were developed. Primarily we need the advantages of group living and place a lot of importance in law and order.

Quote:
Competition "between tribes" and the "advantages of being members of a group" arises as a secondary result due to competition and natural selection between individuals and only if it advantages the individual.
No! What advantages the individual is membership of an altruistic, reciprocal group. If this were not the case we would not live in groups, we would choose to live alone.

Quote:
Then why do social animals, more than any other, cheat and deceive each other instead of always cooperating. Cooperating will always be better for the group.
More importantly, social animals also cooperate and maintain functioning communities...to the extent among humans of building cities, maintaining group activities such as group sports and developing orchestras, governments and theatrical events etc.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:13 AM   #1567
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Conclusion: moral requirements of egalitarian collaboration are not sustainable in natural laws. They are a different kind of exigences that we call moral and need a constant effort of human will to implement them. Biology has nothing to do with freedom. History do.
And yet we have evolved naturally and developed a moral system in which we live by a code of rules designed to maintain a cohesive society. We would not do this if we were not biologically predetermined to do so. It’s a naturally selected survival mechanism.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:14 AM   #1568
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Morality developed in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups, important because humans are social animals. We primates will always try to cheat, which is why justice systems were developed. Primarily we need the advantages of group living and place a lot of importance in law and order.
No, I already explained why and how, more than once.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
What advantages the individual is membership of an altruistic, reciprocal group. If this were not the case we would not live in groups, we would choose to live alone.
Yes, I already explained why and how it works and how it evolved to advantage the individual, not the group.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
More importantly, social animals also cooperate and maintain functioning communities...to the extent among humans of building cities, maintaining group activities such as group sports and developing orchestras, governments and theatrical events etc.
Yes, I already explained why and how it works.

Are you sure you are still talking about evolution and natural selection?
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:24 AM   #1569
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
...
No! What advantages the individual is membership of an altruistic, reciprocal group. If this were not the case we would not live in groups, we would choose to live alone.
...
Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal. The Hominidae includes gorillas and the common chimpanzee, which do not live in social groups based solely on altruistic and reciprocal behavior. The same is true of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not all social groups are solely altruistic and reciprocal. So we don't need to live in solely altruistic and reciprocal groups to live in groups.

Here is how an authoritarian social group function:
# A leader
# A sub-group of people (in power) she/he is dependent on to maintain authority within the overall group of people.
# The majority of people who are suppressed and used in favor of the leader and the sub-group of people in power.
This dynamic can be observed in the common chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:57 AM   #1570
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the individual's self interest, nothing to do with the good of the species or tribe at all. Any selfless individual, acting for the good of the group and not itself, will be selected against and eliminated from the population.
That is true in all mammals, the exception being social insects who share the same genes.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:20 AM   #1571
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the individual's self interest, nothing to do with the good of the species or tribe at all. Any selfless individual, acting for the good of the group and not itself, will be selected against and eliminated from the population.
That is true in all mammals, the exception being social insects who share the same genes.
Altruism and cooperation, except for kinship altruism, is tit for tat and only works in somewhat symmetrical power relationships. The moment you have an asymmetrical power relationship altruism and cooperation can go out the window.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:15 PM   #1572
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
Altruism and cooperation evolved only because it is in the individual's self interest, nothing to do with the good of the species or tribe at all. Any selfless individual, acting for the good of the group and not itself, will be selected against and eliminated from the population.
That is true in all mammals, the exception being social insects who share the same genes.
Sigh!

It is in "the individual's self-interest" to be a member of a functioning cohesive group, because for any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic, reciprocal group outweigh the benefits of individualism. Those who do not conform to the acceptable mores (i.e. morality) of the group will be removed from the group or otherwise dealt with.

Where do you think morality comes from, divine revelation? LOL
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.

Last edited by Tassman; Yesterday at 06:24 PM.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:23 PM   #1573
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal. The Hominidae includes gorillas and the common chimpanzee, which do not live in social groups based solely on altruistic and reciprocal behavior. The same is true of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not all social groups are solely altruistic and reciprocal. So we don't need to live in solely altruistic and reciprocal groups to live in groups.

Here is how an authoritarian social group function:
# A leader
# A sub-group of people (in power) she/he is dependent on to maintain authority within the overall group of people.
# The majority of people who are suppressed and used in favor of the leader and the sub-group of people in power.
This dynamic can be observed in the common chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal certainly, but Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and Bonobo's are...to name three.

“Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”. Frans de Waal
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:28 PM   #1574
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
And yet we have evolved naturally and developed a moral system in which we live by a code of rules designed to maintain a cohesive society. We would not do this if we were not biologically predetermined to do so. It’s a naturally selected survival mechanism.

I pay my bills with patriotically-themed personalized checks. Is that what you mean?
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:37 PM   #1575
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
I pay my bills with patriotically-themed personalized checks. Is that what you mean?
Yep! Provided they don't bounce.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:42 PM   #1576
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal certainly, but Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and Bonobo's are...to name three.

“Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”. Frans de Waal
Here is what I did, I googled Frans de Waal and followed the trial to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008...anzee-politic/
Quote:
Ultimately, as reported by de Waal in the paper “The Brutal Elimination of a Rival Among Captive Male Chimpanzees” published in 1986, Luit was fatally injured by Nikki and Yeroen, a fact that is included in the epilouge as de Waal admits he did not want to initially end his book on a dark note.
So male chimpanzees causes the death of each other.
Now it is your turn: Explain that using science and please cite a general study of the power and group dynamics in chimpanzee groups.
In general it should answer such questions as:
Do chimpanzees only exhibit non-violent behavior?
Is the group behavior totally flat(no leader) or does a given group have a leader?
If a non-flat and non-cooperative group structure, which in part relies on violence, can be observed, then what are the benefits of being a leader in such a group and how does that relate to the theory of evolution?

Can similar group behavior be observed in humans?
Are all in-group behaviors positive or do humans also use power and authority to achieve benefit and not just punish "social misfit" behavior?
If a low ranking member of a group can do "bad" behavior within the group, can a high ranking member of a group do "bad" behavior within the group, which is not punished, but rather gives benefits?

Tassman, try to answer these questions.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:01 AM   #1577
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
And yet we have evolved naturally and developed a moral system in which we live by a code of rules designed to maintain a cohesive society. We would not do this if we were not biologically predetermined to do so. It’s a naturally selected survival mechanism.
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Not all groups are altruistic and reciprocal certainly, but Homo sapiens, chimpanzees and Bonobo's are...to name three.

“Since altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true—religion developed because of our innate capacities for caring”. Frans de Waal
Asking whether animals possess morality is almost like asking if they have a culture, a policy or a language. If we take the human phenomenon as a model in its entirety, it is evident that it is not. However, if we divide the most relevant human skills into their various components, we will see that some are recognizable in other animals. (Frans de Waal: Bien natural, p. 270. Translation from Spanish is mine. I am sorry, I am not the English original.)
Frans de Waal is one of the strongest supporters of a definite line of continuity between animals and humans. He defends that some cultural and moral elements are present in animal species, specially in big primates. Empathy and primary altruism in the case of morality. However, he emphasizes that these disperse features doesn’t constitute a true morality because other specific human features —mainly culture and language— are absent. Morality is an specific human feature linked to an abstract language and the possibility to go beyond natural determinism.
Therefore you can say that nature puts the conditions that make possible morality but not that nature “predeterminates” morality. Human altruism doesn’t exist in any other species. The UDHR is only possible in the context of history and freedom.

In the same way, nature puts some conditions to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but not “predeterminates” Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a terrible outcome of human psychological, political and historical conditions.

Last edited by David Mo; Today at 12:26 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:05 AM   #1578
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Sigh!

It is in "the individual's self-interest" to be a member of a functioning cohesive group, because for any social species the benefits of being part of an altruistic, reciprocal group outweigh the benefits of individualism. Those who do not conform to the acceptable mores (i.e. morality) of the group will be removed from the group or otherwise dealt with.
Sigh2!



We have been over this, I'm not understanding you.

The interests of the group comes secondary to the individuals self interest, it is a secondary effect and arises only because the self interest of the individual alines with that of the group. The individual is exploiting the group for it's own benefit. It is not a zero sum game though, both the group and the individual benefit.
Since there is no mechanism for evolution and natural selection to operate on the group level, cooperation evolved solely for the benefit of the individual.
Since evolution operates on the individual level, not the group, any individuals putting the interests of group above their own will be selected against and removed from the population. Natural selection guarantees that the individual will cheat the group/members of the group as often as it can get away with it.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Where do you think morality comes from, divine revelation? LOL
How ridiculous, divine revelation, really? How do you come up with this?
Literally everything I have written to you explains how morals originate due to evolution and natural selection.

The mistake you are making seems to be in assuming that the interests of the group supersede those of the individual. That is impossible. It cannot happen, ever, not via evolution and natural selection, not in primates.

You are the one who mistakenly thinks you can devise a single morality based on evolution and natural selection, is this correct? Looks like you decided "cooperation with the group is good" and "putting your self interest above that of the group is bad."

If so, you are dead wrong. Science clearly and unambiguously shows that this is not true and in fact cannot be true. The individual will apply and operate under a different set of morals withing the group than it would on it's own.

This is so clearly true that I have no idea how you can even question it.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; Today at 12:06 AM.
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:21 AM   #1579
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Can similar group behavior be observed in humans?
Are all in-group behaviors positive or do humans also use power and authority to achieve benefit and not just punish "social misfit" behavior?
If a low ranking member of a group can do "bad" behavior within the group, can a high ranking member of a group do "bad" behavior within the group, which is not punished, but rather gives benefits?

Tassman, try to answer these questions.
The problem with supporters of natural morality is that they ought to accept violence and brutal relations of power in the same package. Nature is Nature for better or worse. If you choose one or another your choice is out of Nature.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:26 AM   #1580
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Here is what I did, I googled Frans de Waal and followed the trial to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2008...anzee-politic/


So male chimpanzees causes the death of each other.
Male Homo sapiens also cause the death of others. So what’s your point? In neither instance does such behaviour nullify that we are social species. Nor does it eliminate the demonstrable fact that altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour. Frans de Waal and others view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. This is evident both with regard to the observed behavior of our primate cousins and the biological fact humans and other primates possess a part of the brain known as the ‘ventromedial pre-frontal cortex’. It has been demonstrated experimentally...due to cases of brain injury to this region...that this part of the brain is the very part of the brain responsible for our capacity to engage in ethical decision making. When that part of the brain is damaged, ethical decision making is manifestly impaired. In other words, we have an organic and biological basis as well as an evolved social basis for our capacity to act as compassionate, moral beings.

Or do you prefer the view that every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin as a result of their fallen nature and only exhibits altruism as a means to a selfish end? .Is this what you believe, what DO you believe?

Quote:
Now it is your turn: Explain that using science and please cite a general study of the power and group dynamics in chimpanzee groups.
In general it should answer such questions as:
Do chimpanzees only exhibit non-violent behavior?
Is the group behavior totally flat(no leader) or does a given group have a leader?
If a non-flat and non-cooperative group structure, which in part relies on violence, can be observed, then what are the benefits of being a leader in such a group and how does that relate to the theory of evolution?

Can similar group behavior be observed in humans?
Are all in-group behaviors positive or do humans also use power and authority to achieve benefit and not just punish "social misfit" behavior?
If a low ranking member of a group can do "bad" behavior within the group, can a high ranking member of a group do "bad" behavior within the group, which is not punished, but rather gives benefits?

Tassman, try to answer these questions.
What a character! LOL
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:31 AM   #1581
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Male Homo sapiens also cause the death of others. So what’s your point?
See my previous comments, please.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:53 AM   #1582
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post

We have been over this, I'm not understanding you.

The interests of the group comes secondary to the individuals self interest, it is a secondary effect and arises only because the self interest of the individual alines with that of the group. The individual is exploiting the group for it's own benefit. It is not a zero sum game though, both the group and the individual benefit.E]
It is a primary effect. No group involvement = no benefits to the individual.
We are by nature a species that lives in groups.

Quote:
Since there is no mechanism for evolution and natural selection to operate on the group level, cooperation evolved solely for the benefit of the individual.
Nonsense! We have evolved to operate on the group level. We are by nature a social species. By definition this means we are creatures that are greatly interactive with other members of our species, with our individual success highly dependent on the overall cohesion and propagation of the group.

Quote:
Since evolution operates on the individual level, not the group, any individuals putting the interests of group above their own will be selected against and removed from the population. Natural selection guarantees that the individual will cheat the group/members of the group as often as it can get away with it.
See above.

Quote:
How ridiculous, divine revelation, really? How do you come up with this?
Literally everything I have written to you explains how morals originate due to evolution and natural selection.
See above.

Quote:
The mistake you are making seems to be in assuming that the interests of the group supersede those of the individual. That is impossible. It cannot happen, ever, not via evolution and natural selection, not in primates.

You are the one who mistakenly thinks you can devise a single morality based on evolution and natural selection, is this correct? Looks like you decided "cooperation with the group is good" and "putting your self interest above that of the group is bad."
You are wrong. Sorry:

"Social species are genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals. Humans can be considered a social species because we tend to live in communities instead of segregating ourselves as individuals and dispersing to unoccupied territory. In many species, a family unit, meaning parents and their immediate dependent young, groups together and follows particular guidelines of interaction. However, this does not qualify as a society. A society must be composed of more individuals than are contained in a family unit."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science...social-animals
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:54 AM   #1583
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Tassman, here is the God, I believe in!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=326

Relevant to behavior, to kill another human is a natural, physical and biological behavior. It can be described in such terms, but can't be describe as being done by "a social misfit". The problem is the is-ought distinction and that can't be solved using science. In the end that is where you fail. Both "good" and "bad" are natural, physical and biological behavior, but you can't give evidence for good and bad using science.

With regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:56 AM   #1584
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The problem with supporters of natural morality is that they ought to accept violence and brutal relations of power in the same package. Nature is Nature for better or worse. If you choose one or another your choice is out of Nature.
What's the alternative to "natural morality"?
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:58 AM   #1585
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
What's the alternative to "natural morality"?
What are the alternatives to "natural morality"?

With regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:05 AM   #1586
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Tassman, here is the God, I believe in!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=326
Interesting world view. Would you describe yourself a Deist?

Quote:
Relevant to behavior, to kill another human is a natural, physical and biological behavior. It can be described in such terms, but can't be describe as being done by "a social misfit". The problem is the is-ought distinction and that can't be solved using science. In the end that is where you fail. Both "good" and "bad" are natural, physical and biological behavior, but you can't give evidence for good and bad using science.
I haven't attempted to do that. The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we have evolved to live among other human beings. This is all science can tell us. And if we are to do so in a successful way, there are certain basic principles that must apply, if we are to expect them agree on a set of “rules of the game”.

Quote:
With regards
And to you.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:12 AM   #1587
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Interesting world view. Would you describe yourself a Deist?
No, I am an adeist!

Quote:
I haven't attempted to do that. The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we have evolved to live among other human beings. This is all science can tell us. And if we are to do so in a successful way, there are certain basic principles that must apply, if we are to expect them agree on a set of “rules of the game”.
There are no single set of basic principles or only one set of “rules of the game”.
It is possible to have a different set of principles than you and still be an atheist. The only thing atheists have in common, are that they are atheists.
That is what you don't understand.

With regards
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:25 AM   #1588
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
It is a primary effect. No group involvement = no benefits to the individual.
We are by nature a species that lives in groups.
Wrong!
Evolution cannot operate on the group/species level.
Please explain how that is possible.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
We have evolved to operate on the group level. We are by nature a social species. By definition this means we are creatures that are greatly interactive with other members of our species, with our individual success highly dependent on the overall cohesion and propagation of the group.
True to a degree, but in self interest, as I explained. Evolution cannot operate on the group/species level. It is a fact. Please prove otherwise, give me a single example of any primate that, when on it's own, out of sight of the group, won't attempt to selfishly exploit a food source, but will alert the group and share it.

Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
"Social species are genetically inclined to group together and follow a particular set of rules defining interactions between individuals. Humans can be considered a social species because we tend to live in communities instead of segregating ourselves as individuals and dispersing to unoccupied territory. In many species, a family unit, meaning parents and their immediate dependent young, groups together and follows particular guidelines of interaction. However, this does not qualify as a society. A society must be composed of more individuals than are contained in a family unit."
Nothing here contradicts anything I said.

Read this:

The evolution of altruistic social preferences in human groups

Quote:
Current evidence suggests that chimpanzees (and other great apes) cooperate in a number of contexts, but do not have robust preferences for outcomes that benefit others. Even when individuals do not need to make trade-offs between outcomes that benefit themselves and outcomes that benefit others, they do not consistently take advantage of opportunities to deliver rewards to others. However, it is important to acknowledge that this characterization may not be completely accurate. One major shortcoming of all the experimental studies of social preferences on non-human primates is that they are conducted on captive animals in laboratory settings. Efforts to devise more naturalistic experiments which could be conducted in both wild and captive settings would be very valuable.
Research done under natural conditions show the following:
Cooperation with offspring supersedes cooperation with the family group.
Cooperation within the family group supersedes cooperation within the tribe.
Cooperation within the tribe supersedes cooperation within the species.
Cooperation within the species supersedes cooperation with other species.

This is explained by kin selection.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB

Last edited by Cheetah; Today at 03:24 AM.
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:03 AM   #1589
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
It is a primary effect. No group involvement = no benefits to the individual.
We are by nature a species that lives in groups.
...
Your problem is this:
You accept that a single individual can work against the group and not that the group can work against the individual.
Further you ignore "strong man" groups and think that there are only egalitarian groups.

And when that is brought up, you claim it means that we are religious. Your last line of defense is that your atheism and world view is the only non-religious world view possible and all other world views therefore must be religious.

Added: You are in sense dogmatic and an moral/ethical objectivist and realist when it comes to morality and ethics. You deny cognitive and moral relativism and claim all other moral systems are religious. You don't know what moral anti-realism entails.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; Today at 03:20 AM. Reason: Addition
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:46 AM   #1590
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by Cheetah View Post
...
Research done under natural conditions show the following:
Cooperation with offspring supersedes cooperation with the family group.
Cooperation within the family group supersedes cooperation within the tribe.
Cooperation within the tribe supersedes cooperation within the species.
Cooperation within the species supersedes cooperation with other species.

This is explained by kin selection.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ghis-Khan.html

So war pays!!! Good to be the Khan, when it comes to breeding.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:10 AM   #1591
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
So war pays!!! Good to be the Khan, when it comes to breeding.
From your link:
Quote:
16 million men are thought to be directly descended from Genghis Khan.
Wow, that is just incredible.
__________________
"... when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow so that I can feel the rain" - DMB
Cheetah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:40 AM   #1592
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
What's the alternative to "natural morality"?
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
What are the alternatives to "natural morality"?

With regards
Of course, there are many. If you ask me what I prefer my answer wouldn't be simple. I suggest a mixed of emotional morality, dialogical morality and political action. For the first I sugger a reading of Hume; Habermas or Rawls for the second; and the third is a personal elaboration. I cannot expound this now. But I can come back on the subject if it interest you.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:04 AM   #1593
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,032
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course, there are many. If you ask me what I prefer my answer wouldn't be simple. I suggest a mixed of emotional morality, dialogical morality and political action. For the first I sugger a reading of Hume; Habermas or Rawls for the second; and the third is a personal elaboration. I cannot expound this now. But I can come back on the subject if it interest you.
Well, I am properly a lot like you, but since I am Danish I would also add a Scandinavian. Knud Ejler Løgstrup.
I have this part of me, I like phenomenology and other variants of how to explain reality as a human experience/condition.
Further since my wife is a social worker, I have been exposed to a lot of practical applications of morality/ethics in asymmetrical one to one human interaction. And because I have a psychiatric disorder myself, I have experiences of being on the receiving of both normal humans and the welfare state.

There is a joke about social workers in the Scandinavian sense. For someone like me it goes like this: Show me your(special needs person) closet and clothes and I shall tell you, how and who your social worker is.

So I have a bias against any one system of correct behavior, because it tends to stigmatize my kind as the "social misfits" or what not.
And as a skeptic I don't believe in any strong justification of morality and ethics only using the strong version of being rational and using evidence/proof or indeed Truth.

Yes, we can make a thread, if you like.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; Today at 04:26 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 08:24 AM   #1594
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,344
Originally Posted by Tassman
Originally Posted by Frank Newgent View Post
I pay my bills with patriotically-themed personalized checks. Is that what you mean?
Yep! Provided they don't bounce.
And if I wrote one to NAMBLA?
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.