For sonship: On Childishness

The first question is notionally confused. Our cognitive faculties furnish us with information processing of the world around us, with beliefs and similar mental states, with reasoning, etc, and this includes the deliverances of the moral faculty.

I don't know why you are playing confused.
What is the end result of these furnishings ?

It is for survival.
Survival of the fittest.

You're still bluffing.

I said nothing about "survival mechanisms". I said something about selection mechanisms, as it regards natural selection processes. The claim is not that our cognitive faculties provide us with survival mechanisms (lord knows where you get this stuff).

Natural selection, according to evolution theory, has its function in equiping the species for survival.

You're still bluffing me pretending that just because I do not say things in exactly the manner you read them, I am confused.

The claim is that our cognitive faculties, which include the moral sense at issue, are the product of the type of selection mechanisms that I listed at work on our ancestors.

My questions remain the same.

This way of "argument by persuading a questioner that he is confused" is getting old.

The questions concerned whether the selection mechanism merely furnish us with fittest equipping to survive or furnish us with truth about what is really wrong and what is really right.

If you do not believe that torturing babies for fun is REALLY wrong, but only not suitable for the survival of the species, then I object.

You may not have mentioned "survival of the fittest". But don't act puzzled because I mention it in context of this discussion. I don't think there is a misunderstanding at all.

(After all, that's what you asked me, remember? You asked me about the descriptively specifiable origin of our moral sense. ) Do you even understand the claim here?

I asked you more than just one thing.
You answered in part:

The claim is that our cognitive faculties, which include the moral sense at issue, are the product of the type of selection mechanisms that I listed at work on our ancestors.

So this says something about where the moral sense comes from. It does not tell me that this moral sense is just an expediency or whether moral right and wrong actually exist objectively.

Is torturing babies for fun really wrong ?
Or is it just not expedient for the survival of the species ?

If on another planet beings evolved such that torturing the infants for pleasure, for fun helped them to survive would it be right ?

The following regards the second question. Again, our cognitive faculties provide us with beliefs among other things. Yes, of course, a good many of these are true, although our cognitive faculties are almost certainly not perfect in this regard.

So then how about the torturing of babies for fun and games ?

Is it "true" that it is wrong ?
If it is wrong then your evolution was preparing us to adapt to know what is objectively right and objectively wrong.

If that is the case then there must be some standard outside of us, even before we evolved, even before we arrived, that embodies the truth of what is right and what is wrong.

Imagine two planets. One has beings who evolution equiped with the tendency to torture their young newborns for games and entertainment. Somehow it helps them to survive. On another planet the beings are appalled at the thought of torturing newborns for fun.

Is there a truth concerning which planet has the adoptive behavior that is right? Or is it just relative ?

"I ought not eat my offspring" is a moral belief my faculties have provided me, and it surely seems true. "I ought not chuck my offspring into a wood chipper." There's another. We could go on and on. I do not know what you mean by "transcendent and universal". But, at any rate, I think these beliefs I mentioned are true because they report objective facts.

I came up in the 60s when some people said "whatever is good to you is good for you." Relativity ruled in many spheres of our lives. The time came when I read in the New Testament that the judgment of God is according to truth.

"But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth upon those who practice such things." ( Rom. 2:2 )

There are things which we better have more than a vague sense to say "it surely seems true." Some things we know that we know that we know are just wrong "according to truth" and some things are just right "according to truth".

That is not to say all ethical issues are easy to figure out.
The very fact that we argue reveals that we on either side of the issue, have conviction that there IS a truth side to be upheld. Therefore even our disagreement indicates our belief that there is something transcendent and universal which we must be clear about.

I believe God does not on a whim dispense rules for man to live by. Rather God's is that transcendent universal Being whose rightness is just His nature. And His adjudication of morality is "according to truth."

His infinite justice and His infinite love were manifested in time and space in human history in Jesus Christ. That's what I believe.

You're evolutionary explanation of the moral sense leaves morality arbitrary, relative, and a matter of human opinion. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Moral values are not absolute.

I do not say that our understanding of these values or the circumstances in which they should be applied necessarily absolute. There are tough issues over which we debate in terms of circumstances or application.

As an atheist you may act good because being made in the image of God you have an innate desire to do what is right (though not always to power to carry it through). But as an atheist, even if you do right, you have no to justify objective right or wrong unless you admit a Moral Law Giver - transcendent and universal. And if you do that then you would cease to be an atheist.

In spite of the shell game you are playing, shuffling around questions as you think they should be asked and answered, I think the bottom line is you are a relativist.

sonship:
IE "It is simply wrong that I steal my neighbor's wife out of jealousy."

As opposed to merely

"The species will do better if one does not steal his neighbor's wife."

What do you think?

LJ:
"The species" is not the principal unit of selection. Neither is the individual for that matter. At any rate, even if the gene is the principal unit of selection; and even if the selection thereof is the predominant etiological factor in the emergence of our cognitive faculties; it does not follow that the beliefs furnished to us by these faculties should take the gene as their object.

I do not see a clear answer to my question there. I see a side comment about where species or indivdual should be seen as the selection unit and an "IF" but I do not see a straightforward reply:

At any rate, even if the gene is the principal unit of selection; and even if the selection thereof is the predominant etiological factor in the emergence of our cognitive faculties; it does not follow that the beliefs furnished to us by these faculties should take the gene as their object.

I assume that you wish to refine all my questions away.
It has the impression to me of skillful evasion.

That you would even hint otherwise suggests to me either (1) you do not have a good understanding of the selection mechanisms responsible for regulating the helping behaviors in our species or (2) you're virtually clueless on the content of moral beliefs in humans. But (2) would be strange, for I presume you have of course introspected on your own moral beliefs.

I don't know what took you so long -

The old "You Don't Understand Evolution!" mantra.

Do any of them resemble "The species will do better if one does not steal his neighbor's wife"? Have you ever asked any persons around you what their moral beliefs are?

Most people around me don't wait to be asked.
You know by being around them.

Have they reported anything that resembles this? Of course not. So, it's likely (1) rather than (2). Our cognitive faculties furnish us with moral beliefs that more closely resemble the former rather than the latter, with respect to those you listed.

If that is the case then how can we really trust out cognitive faculties to inform us of what is really true?

And if that is the case that our cognitive faculties do not inform us of what is TRUE but only of what is advantageous to survival (wherever you wish to locate the unit) then how can you trust your cognitive faculties to be telling you the truth about evolution itself ?

Suppose you have a rabbit who has evolved a certain behavior of running away from a fox. This running away from the fox helps its kind or species to survive. So that trait is naturally selected for.

But it could be running away from the fox not because it is afraid of being eaten but because it regards that it is a fun game. Maybe it runs away because it thinks the fox wants to race. Maybe it runs because its mother and it wants to show off to mom how fast it can run.

If I understand you #1 (more likely) scenario, what is actually TRUE is not important. What is important is only that the behavior of running helps the species to continue living. The fast running rabbits then have the trait naturally selected for and the rabbits evolve and survive.

The cognitive faculties of the rabbit ...

Originally posted by sonship

The first question is notionally confused. Our cognitive faculties furnish us with information processing of the world around us, with beliefs and similar mental states, with reasoning, etc, and this includes the deliverances of the moral faculty.

I don't know why you are playing confused.
What is the end result of these furnishings ...[text shortened]... selected for and the rabbits evolve and survive.

The cognitive faculties of the rabbit ...

I don't know why you are playing confused.
What is the end result of these furnishings ?

It is for survival.
Survival of the fittest.

I am not "playing confused." I said that you are the one who is notionally confused, remember? The "end result" of our cognitive furnishings is that they give us a view and understanding of the world in the form of various interrelated mental representations. Nowhere have I stated that this is all for "survival of the fittest". I know you have your silly little caricatures that you like to project on others: that's your problem, not mine; that is an article of your own misunderstanding, not mine. I'll state this for you explicitly so that you can have no excuse for projecting this onto me again in the future: I explicitly deny that a catch-phrase like "survivial of the fittest" adequately captures the end result of natural selection. It plays to a language of convenience, but taken literally it misrepresents how natural selection actually works. It provides the implication that the individual is the unit of selection, but I think that is simply false, as I have already explicitly told you previously in this thread.

Natural selection, according to evolution theory, has its function in equiping the species for survival.

"Equiping [sic] the species for survival"? I am not even sure what that means. If natural selection acts on species and equips species for survival, then a species that undergoes natural selection should have everything to survive; but most species that underwent natural selection have gone extinct and by inference did not have everything needed to survive. So there is obviously something wrong with your understanding of 'natural selection'. Loosely, natural selection is about the differential survival of traits within some population. I think, more fundamentally, it is about the differential survival of genes. None of this entails that natural selection equips a species for survival.

So this says something about where the moral sense comes from. It does not tell me that this moral sense is just an expediency or whether moral right and wrong actually exist objectively.

Gee, no kidding. Did you simply miss all the times where I stated that there is a difference between providing etiological explanation for the human moral sense; and providing some meta-ethical view that would serve to justify those sensibilities?

Let's recap what happened because it really is hilarious. You asked me to provide explanation for the origin of the human moral sense. I then even inserted a whole extended post asking for clarification because, as I explained, that is just an anthropologic question that provides descriptive explanation but would provide no meta-ethical accounting for how any of these sensibilities could be factual or justified, etc. I wanted clarification that this is actually what you were looking for. Even after reading that post of clarification, you said "Start there then" as if challenging me to give some descriptive explanation for the human moral sense. After all this, when I then go on to oblige you, you object that I am not providing the meta-ethical accounting. Hilarious! You know, I would still like to think that entering these discussions with you (and Freaky, too) is not a complete waste of my time. However, you surely can see now how I have some building evidence to the contrary.

So then how about the torturing of babies for fun and games ?

Is it "true" that it is wrong ?
If it is wrong then your evolution was preparing us to adapt to know what is objectively right and objectively wrong.

If that is the case then there must be some standard outside of us, even before we evolved, even before we arrived, that embodies the truth of what is right and what is wrong.

Yes, I already said that I take it to be an objective fact that one ought not eat his baby or throw his baby in a wood chipper. Feel free to infer that I also take it to be an objective fact that one ought not torture babies for fun and games. I am not sure what you mean when you "If that is the case then there must be some standard outside of us, even before we evolved, even before we arrived, that embodies the truth of what is right and what is wrong." The only thing I am committed to here is that there exists an objective fact of the matter regarding whether or not one ought to engage in baby torture for fun. The only thing I am committed to here is that the statement "One ought not engage in baby torture for fun and games" is true, irrespective of what any agents may think about the statement.

Imagine two planets. One has beings who evolution equiped with the tendency to torture their young newborns for games and entertainment. Somehow it helps them to survive. On another planet the beings are appalled at the thought of torturing newborns for fun.

Is there a truth concerning which planet has the adoptive behavior that is right? Or is it just relative ?

I will state again what I just said: The only thing I am committed to here is that the statement "One ought not engage in baby torture for fun and games" is true, irrespective of what any agents may think about the statement.

You're evolutionary explanation of the moral sense leaves morality arbitrary, relative, and a matter of human opinion. Everyone does what is right in their own eyes. Moral values are not absolute.

If that is what you think, then your reading comprehension blows. Maybe you and FreakyKBH should form a study group for mutual benefit, or something? My evolutionary explanation of the moral sense entails nothing about meta-ethical questions like whether some form of relativism is true or not. I've already made this exceedingly clear, so you can have no excuse for getting this so wrong.

But as an atheist, even if you do right, you have no to justify objective right or wrong unless you admit a Moral Law Giver - transcendent and universal. And if you do that then you would cease to be an atheist.

Ever study any secular ethics? There are a whole bunch of views that posit objective foundations for morals and have nothing to do with admitting a "Moral Law Giver". Perhaps it would be better to read up on them before declaiming on them?

In spite of the shell game you are playing, shuffling around questions as you think they should be asked and answered, I think the bottom line is you are a relativist.

Yeah I could see how my saying that I think there are objective facts that settle moral questions would give you the impression that I am a relativist on such matters.

Of course, I am kidding. The truth is that you just cannot be bothered to take the time to read and assimilate what I say in these discussions. At any rate, I've made it clear in this thread that I do not think the truth value of moral claims hinge on what any persons or groups of persons think about those claims. So, now after reading this, if you still think I am a relativist on the matter, then you probably need to seek professional help for your reading comprehension issues. Sign Freaky up too, and you guys can carpool.

If I understand you #1 (more likely) scenario, what is actually TRUE is not important. What is important is only that the behavior of running helps the species to continue living.

Good grief. I was referring to the fact that I think (1) is more likely true than (2), in reference to the following:

“…either (1) you do not have a good understanding of the selection mechanisms responsible for regulating the helping behaviors in our species or (2) you're virtually clueless on the content of moral beliefs in humans.”

Originally posted by LemonJello
No one is this impossibly ignorant, so give over. If you honestly cannot come up with any natural sources of light on the planet, why not try wading through the terrestrial sources listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_light_sources

As I have already said, your light argument is one of the most asinine I have seen in a long time on this fo ...[text shortened]... o the thread topic? If not, you'll have to excuse me if I ignore you until such time as you do.

Okay, LemonJello, I concede.

Your false bravado exceeds all others, including my own.
But here?
Here, you've outdone even yourself.

I honestly cannot come up with any natural sources of light[b], so I tried [b]wading through the terrestrial sources listed in the link you provided.

You'll never guess what I didn't find.
Not a single source other than what I already named.

I think--- when it really gets down to it--- you're just a petulant over-educated punk whose right-sounding vocabulary has put you in the position of throwing sticks which you tell others to fetch.

Here, as with many-many other examples, you have pretended to throw yet another stick.
You're hoping no one actually follows it (just like you do with citing Joyce, for example) but if they do, they are to be chided for their inability to find the non-existent object buried in the high grass.

This "list" you cite is a joke, just as your insistence at 'not getting' whatever arguments or claims with which you disagree is a joke.
You are completely lacking in honest intellectual pursuit, in direct proportion with your lack of humility.

Best of luck.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Okay, LemonJello, I concede.

Your false bravado exceeds all others, including my own.
But here?
Here, you've outdone even yourself.

I [b]honestly cannot come up with any natural sources of light[b], so I tried [b]wading through the terrestrial sources listed in the link you provided.

You'll never guess what I didn't find.
Not a single sourc ...[text shortened]... n honest intellectual pursuit, in direct proportion with your lack of humility.

Best of luck.[/b]

Nope; your whole 'light' argument was simply incoherent.

For you to claim others lack intellectual honesty is laughable. You have to first put up a decent argument (or go read their response to someone else's decent argument, if that is too tall an order) to even begin to determine if someone shows intellectual honesty in response.

Perhaps come back and try again once the wounds to the ego have healed.

I am not "playing confused." I said that you are the one who is notionally confused, remember? The "end result" of our cognitive furnishings is that they give us a view and understanding of the world in the form of various interrelated mental representations. Nowhere have I stated that this is all for "survival of the fittest". I know you have your silly little caricatures that you like to project on others: that's your problem, not mine; that is an article of your own misunderstanding, not mine. I'll state this for you explicitly so that you can have no excuse for projecting this onto me again in the future: I explicitly deny that a catch-phrase like "survivial of the fittest" adequately captures the end result of natural selection. It plays to a language of convenience, but taken literally it misrepresents how natural selection actually works. It provides the implication that the individual is the unit of selection, but I think that is simply false, as I have already explicitly told you previously in this thread.

I lost on a technicality about 30 minutes of typing.

There is nothing wrong with using an expression of convenience at times.
The term "Survival of the Fittest" is still a useful phrase in the discussion of evolution if not perfect. You may regard it as either hackneyed or misrepresentative on some level. I see no need to discard the phrase.

But I am replying to a paragraph at a time because the length is cumbersome and I have misunderstood some things written because of scrolling up and down to check the progression of your comments.

Equiping [sic] the species for survival"? I am not even sure what that means. If natural selection acts on species and equips species for survival, then a species that undergoes natural selection should have everything to survive; but most species that underwent natural selection have gone extinct and by inference did not have everything needed to survive. So there is obviously something wrong with your understanding of 'natural selection'. Loosely, natural selection is about the differential survival of traits within some population. I think, more fundamentally, it is about the differential survival of genes. None of this entails that natural selection equips a species for survival.

Natural selection is about traits advantageous to the survival of the organism being passed on.

And "survival of the fittest" is a useful phrase still to express something of this idea, even if you have much discussion on other ways to express the same concept from more recent writings.

Skipping down

Good grief. I was referring to the fact that I think (1) is more likely true than (2), in reference to the following:

“…either (1) you do not have a good understanding of the selection mechanisms responsible for regulating the helping behaviors in our species or (2) you're virtually clueless on the content of moral beliefs in humans.”

My mistake then.

Let's recap what happened because it really is hilarious. You asked me to provide explanation for the origin of the human moral sense. I then even inserted a whole extended post asking for clarification because, as I explained, that is just an anthropologic question that provides descriptive explanation but would provide no meta-ethical accounting for how any of these sensibilities could be factual or justified, etc. I wanted clarification that this is actually what you were looking for. Even after reading that post of clarification, you said "Start there then" as if challenging me to give some descriptive explanation for the human moral sense. After all this, when I then go on to oblige you, you object that I am not providing the meta-ethical accounting. Hilarious! You know, I would still like to think that entering these discussions with you (and Freaky, too) is not a complete waste of my time. However, you surely can see now how I have some building evidence to the contrary.

You continually try to jury rig the discussion by attempting to re-channeling me to ask what you want to talk about. This is your "asking for clarification".

that is just an anthropologic question that provides descriptive explanation but would provide no meta-ethical accounting for how any of these sensibilities could be factual or justified, etc. I wanted clarification that this is actually what you were looking for.

That's look for what YOU want me to look for.

Forget it.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Nope; your whole 'light' argument was simply incoherent.

For you to claim others lack intellectual honesty is laughable. You have to first put up a decent argument (or go read their response to someone else's decent argument, if that is too tall an order) to even begin to determine if someone shows intellectual honesty in response.

Perhaps come back and try again once the wounds to the ego have healed.

Nope; your whole 'light' argument was simply incoherent.
Ah, I see.
So if I read you right, you hold there is some weight to the counter argument, that (as LemonJello continually insisted but failed to support) there is light which is naturally emitted here on the planet?
Some light which approximates the light we see from the sun?
Are you trying to further that same foolish position and are you now insisting we have some examples of light which is naturally emitted--- but not from the sun?

Or are you saying you simply don't understand the proposition?

Perhaps come back and try again once the wounds to the ego have healed.
Ego has little to nothing to do with this, as far as it involves my position.
What this has to do with is the arrogant posturing of quasi-intellectualism which continually deflects the points of any given argument which challenges the status quo of the insecure atheist.

'You're notionally confused.'
'You spelled a word wrong, you ignorant doofus.'
'You haven't a clue as to even the basic underpinning concepts.'

Your tired list of incoherent crap is enough to alienate you from pretty much everyone except those who--- kindred in spirit--- think. Just. Like. You.
That group of people all share such a warm camaraderie: nihilists, the lot of them.

Well, your concrete life will soon be shattered... but not with sledgehammers or other means of percussion.

Weeds overtake you.

I will state again what I just said: The only thing I am committed to here is that the statement "One ought not engage in baby torture for fun and games" is true, irrespective of what any agents may think about the statement.

What I re-call you writing was that it "seems" to be true.

"I ought not eat my offspring" is a moral belief my faculties have provided me, and it surely seems true. "I ought not chuck my offspring into a wood chipper." There's another.

Ever study any secular ethics? There are a whole bunch of views that posit objective foundations for morals and have nothing to do with admitting a "Moral Law Giver". Perhaps it would be better to read up on them before declaiming on them?

I know other objective foundations are proposed. But I think they fail to replace a Moral Law Giver though people like yourself wish they did.

Of course, I am kidding. The truth is that you just cannot be bothered to take the time to read and assimilate what I say in these discussions. At any rate, I've made it clear in this thread that I do not think the truth value of moral claims hinge on what any persons or groups of persons think about those claims. So, now after reading this, if you still think I am a relativist on the matter, then you probably need to seek professional help for your reading comprehension issues. Sign Freaky up too, and you guys can carpool.

You are casually tossing out some phrases which I am sure, if I read the text you unearthed them from, you would expect me to understand.

I try to break down the meaning of phrases which I suspect are specialized to some text that someone may not have before them.

Your are slinging around phrases particular to some publication perhaps which you assume everyone surely has read. Maybe that is what makes you feel less childish.

Sure, I have books with certain a phraseology unfamiliar to those who have not read them. I do not count that as as a sign of their lack of reading comprehension.

Genuine misunderstandings I am willing to revisit. Slinging around "meta-ethical" (?) as a household word is not impressive unless you define it. This is a snow job.

meta-ethical accounting

What's that household phrase suppose to mean ?

I've made it clear in this thread that I do not think the truth value of moral claims hinge on what any persons or groups of persons think about those claims.

Then they are "outside" of us as I wrote, and in other words you express that understanding. If some truth claims are truly true regardless of anyone's opinion, then you hold to some sense of transcendent and universal moral standard, which you seemed to be say before that you didn't know what I meant.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What I did say, however, is that there is nothing on the planet that emits light naturally and of its own power like the sun.
...That if man was not around to create it, this planet would be dark half the time, saving the occasional fire or strike of lightning.
[/b]

You missed out bioluminescence.
Bioluminescence is the production and emission of light by a
living organism. Bioluminescence occurs widely in marine
vertebrates and invertebrates, as well as in some fungi,
microorganisms and terrestrial invertebrates. Some symbiotic
organisms carried within larger organisms produce light.
from wiki

But basically what you are saying is that there is NOTHING on this
planet that emits light naturally EXCEPT things that emit light naturally
such as fire, lightning, St Elmo's, bioluminescence etc.

It's hard to argue with that!!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Nope; your whole 'light' argument was simply incoherent.
Ah, I see.
So if I read you right, you hold there is some weight to the counter argument, that (as LemonJello continually insisted but failed to support) there is light which is naturally emitted here on the planet?
Some light which approximates the light we see from the sun?
Are you tryin ...[text shortened]... be shattered... but not with sledgehammers or other means of percussion.

Weeds overtake you.[/b]

Seriously, give it a few days. Maybe a few weeks. Re-read the thread in cold blood and you may be surprised with what you actually wrote.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
But basically what you are saying is that there is [b]NOTHING on this
planet that emits light naturally EXCEPT things that emit light naturally
such as fire, lightning, St Elmo's, bioluminescence etc.

It's hard to argue with that!![/b]

And of course one must restrict the use of the word 'light' to refer to visible light only as the whole planet is positively glowing at other wavelengths.