Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

sapiens · 04-21-2003, 01:49 PM

4thTimeLucky: thanks for the response.

On the biological front I do find myself mostly agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to say that we can/will control our own 'evolution', but was instead trying to convey the extent to which we now have control over our own actions and the fate of our species. We are no longer at the whim of evolution in the way that, say, a giraffe is.

We certainly have a more complex behavioral repetoire than a giraffe, but I think that we are equally at the whim of evolution. I'm also not sure how much control we have over the fate of our species. We certainly have high perceived control. If we go extinct, does that mean that it was under our control? If any species goes extinct, how do we determine whether it was/was not under that species control?

There will be a structure. But only in the sense that all life follows internal rules and patterns.

Is there any other sense?

For example, the ants life has a structure which we can go a long way to being able to grasp and model (eat, sleep, build, protect etc.). But if that is the best structure we have then (a) because our structures are so complex we will find it hard to explain (and sometimes predict) our actions and (b) even if we can explain them, it looks like we are going to be describing our own actions in the third person (we lose the agency) and it may become deterministic (a whole new kettle of fish!)

That doesn't bother me.

...However a person with a moral structure could explain his actions. Furthermore could answer the follow-up question "Why?". "Because that old man has rights" , or, "Because we have a duty to respect our elders", or, "Because that mugging would have made the world a worse place (created more disutility than utility)."

The person with a moreal structure could explain his actions as he sees them, but who's to say that any of us are honest or even accurate when describing our own motivation.

But this is the central crux of morality, which I'm sure you and most of the readers here are aware of. Is it objective or is it a case of 'to each his own'. Neither route is easy.

I agree that neither route is easy. To sum up: When I suggested that biology may influence morality, I was not suggesting that morality is not a personal choice. I do think that morality is a personal choice. (I really don't want to get into a discussion of free will). I was suggesting that if you look at moral systems across time and across the cultures, you may find some biologically relevant patterns.

Power and reason: It's tempting to say that you must conclude "might is right", but that's wrong. Nothing is "right", you can only hope that either (a) you are on the side with the might, or (b) the mighty sides reasoning is better than everyone elses.

I agree.

Richard Dawkins:
A complete prejudice and pet hate on my part. It stems from my preception of him being arrogant, supported by a number of television appearances he has made and articles he has written. Oh, and he's an Oxford man and I'm at Cambridge. Enough said.

We don't get to see much of Richard Dawkins on TV in the states.

Anyway, it has been a thought-provoking discussion, thanks.

04-21-2003, 01:49 PM	#27 (permalink)
sapiens Junkie Location: Some place windy	4thTimeLucky: thanks for the response. On the biological front I do find myself mostly agreeing with you. I wasn't trying to say that we can/will control our own 'evolution', but was instead trying to convey the extent to which we now have control over our own actions and the fate of our species. We are no longer at the whim of evolution in the way that, say, a giraffe is. We certainly have a more complex behavioral repetoire than a giraffe, but I think that we are equally at the whim of evolution. I'm also not sure how much control we have over the fate of our species. We certainly have high perceived control. If we go extinct, does that mean that it was under our control? If any species goes extinct, how do we determine whether it was/was not under that species control? There will be a structure. But only in the sense that all life follows internal rules and patterns. Is there any other sense? For example, the ants life has a structure which we can go a long way to being able to grasp and model (eat, sleep, build, protect etc.). But if that is the best structure we have then (a) because our structures are so complex we will find it hard to explain (and sometimes predict) our actions and (b) even if we can explain them, it looks like we are going to be describing our own actions in the third person (we lose the agency) and it may become deterministic (a whole new kettle of fish!) That doesn't bother me. ...However a person with a moral structure could explain his actions. Furthermore could answer the follow-up question "Why?". "Because that old man has rights" , or, "Because we have a duty to respect our elders", or, "Because that mugging would have made the world a worse place (created more disutility than utility)." The person with a moreal structure could explain his actions as he sees them, but who's to say that any of us are honest or even accurate when describing our own motivation. But this is the central crux of morality, which I'm sure you and most of the readers here are aware of. Is it objective or is it a case of 'to each his own'. Neither route is easy. I agree that neither route is easy. To sum up: When I suggested that biology may influence morality, I was not suggesting that morality is not a personal choice. I do think that morality is a personal choice. (I really don't want to get into a discussion of free will). I was suggesting that if you look at moral systems across time and across the cultures, you may find some biologically relevant patterns. Power and reason: It's tempting to say that you must conclude "might is right", but that's wrong. Nothing is "right", you can only hope that either (a) you are on the side with the might, or (b) the mighty sides reasoning is better than everyone elses. I agree. Richard Dawkins: A complete prejudice and pet hate on my part. It stems from my preception of him being arrogant, supported by a number of television appearances he has made and articles he has written. Oh, and he's an Oxford man and I'm at Cambridge. Enough said. We don't get to see much of Richard Dawkins on TV in the states. Anyway, it has been a thought-provoking discussion, thanks.