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 Today, 12:36 AM   #1561
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 869
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; Today 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 Today, 01:14 AM   #1562
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,206
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 Today, 01:29 AM   #1563
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 725
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 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, 01:45 AM   #1564
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 725
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; Today at 01:51 AM.
Cheetah 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, 02:20 AM   #1565
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 725
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 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, 03:05 AM   #1566
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 869
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 Today, 03:13 AM   #1567
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sydney/Phuket.
Posts: 869
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 Today, 03:14 AM   #1568
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 725
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 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, 03:24 AM   #1569
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,015
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 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, 03:57 AM   #1570
Cheetah
Muse
 
Cheetah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 725
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 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, 04:20 AM   #1571
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,015
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 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 02:46 PM.
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.