Thoughts? — JosephS
Questioner: Okay, my question for you today is: without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest?
RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.
Here is an article by someone who can actually support their argument. Thoughts? — JosephS
If I could, with enough information, tell you which moral principles will tend to develop in which environments (and possibly with what justifications) does that undermine theories of moral relativism? — JosephS
All that we can understand, imagine, believe, and do is dependent on the anatomy and physiology of our brains, which are products of natural selection as much as our limbs and our other organs. We try to maintain ourselves in existence for as long as possible—to achieve a respectable span of 70 or 80 years—and to produce offspring who will themselves be capable of producing offspring. It is pointless to ask what the purpose of our existence is.
I'd say once things get as complex as morality, reductionism may not be the best way forward. — ssu
Could not have said it better myself.Wondering why there's so much general agreement, even between cultures who have never met... ethical naturalism may be a useful way to think about that. Wondering whether to spend more on health care even at the expense of people's financial autonomy...I doubt ethical naturalism will be anything other than a pointless distraction. — Isaac
The article, "Darwinian Morality" is yet another exercise in infinite regress, as well as a complete misunderstanding as to what "reason" is. Seriously, the author utterly misunderstands formal knowledge. — alcontali
The main point I made was that of being able to make predictive claims as to which mores will develop and whether this reflects a sense of an objective moral standard (objective is reflective of its predictive capability -- it is the encompassing standard that would be objective and universal, not any particular principle in any particular environment). — JosephS
If I could, with enough information, tell you which moral principles will tend to develop in which environments (and possibly with what justifications) does that undermine theories of moral relativism? — JosephS
If I could, with enough information, tell you which moral principles will tend to develop in which environments (and possibly with what justifications) does that undermine theories of moral relativism? — JosephS
How do moral theories compete? — JosephS
there exists a hope of utility — JosephS
this is where the utility lies. — JosephS
A person is, from the biologist’s perspective, a temporary federation of replicators that are working to be represented in future generations, sometimes threatened, sometimes exploited, and sometimes assisted by other federations of replicators (Dawkins 1999). We exist not to glorify God, nor to exercise rationality, nor to bring about any particular conditions of society, but merely because we are assemblages of successful replicators. Reproduction is the habitual practice of every organism; it is not the specialization of females, but of every living creature, and sooner or later, after the completion of this task, the individual dies.
That hypothesis is that social acceptance of homosexuality is positively impacted by a broad perception of reaching population equilibrium. — JosephS
I dont see how that makes moral relativism absurd. All you did was explain what moral relativism is.Moral relativism is absurd, because if morality is different for every person and/or social group, everything and nothing is moral and immoral across individuals and/or social groups. — Galuchat
Was this quote before or after he wrote The Selfish Gene? In the selfish Gene he explains how altruism evolved naturally. He also doesnt seem to understand that moral codes are a natural outcome of intelligent social beings with long memories.RICHARD DAWKINS: I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It's undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.
Comparative Religion would be one.Besides that functor approach -- which is not necessarily easy to use -- I don't know of any other attempt at juxtaposing (morality) systems. — alcontali
I can't help you with that.I dont see how that makes moral relativism absurd. — Harry Hindu
I'd like to know what you mean by
If I could, with enough information, tell you which moral principles will tend to develop in which environments (and possibly with what justifications) does that undermine theories of moral relativism?
— JosephS
Does the ability to predict a set of moral values confer objectivity to morality?
I agree that predictability indicates a rationale. I don't follow the step to objectivity?
Also what exactly do you mean by environment? I consider morality to be social being and in my opinion that makes environment synonymous with society itself. If that's the case then doesn't it amount to saying different people/societies develop their own unique morals and that sounds like subjectivity rather than objectivity. Perhaps you have something else in mind when you use the word "environment". Please clarify.
Understanding objectivity as truths, fixed and unchanging, and usually determined through consensus of opinion, I think we'd be better off looking for common moral values that cut across all cultures and peoples. — TheMadFool
There's really only one kind of broad ethical theory that underpins all these questions, and it is utilitarianism. — Wayfarer
I think the ease with which a religious philosophy is categorised and cast off ought to be questioned here. — Wayfarer
Was this quote before or after he wrote The Selfish Gene? — Harry Hindu
There is an argument (I believe either Dawkins or Hawking voiced it) that suggested a disbelief in God because he is "not necessary". — JosephS
Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") — Wikipedia
I'm thinking now of how we value individuals, even the indigent, such that we take them to the hospital when they are in critical need, even in cases where the cost outweighs any obvious societal benefit (and then let them die rather than give them a million dollar heart transplant). There is a utilitarian argument there, but it strikes me as a bit tortured. It's easier, I feel, to defend it on deontological terms. — JosephS
I prefer to contemplate the variety of faith beliefs as many avenues to wisdom. — JosephS
.I doubt ethical naturalism will be anything other than a pointless distraction. — Isaac
I can't help you with that. — Galuchat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.