This no good or evil

Originally posted by Ristar
Perhaps a rephrasing of the question is in order:

If I murdered this baby in the manner I have described, how would you feel? Would you be appalled or would you take it in stride?

I'd be horrified.

Originally posted by amannion
I'd be horrified.

And horror is a legitimate response. But we must ask ourselves the question, "Why do I feel the way I do?" Why are you horrified?

Some would invoke God's influence, but many would not. What are the alternatives? Your upbringing, your genes, society? But where did they come from?

In fact, let us bring it back to the ultimate cause, the origin of the universe itself. Where did it come from? Physical scientists are the first to admit that they are not qualified to answer that question. Yet the question remains. Why do we almost universally feel horror at the brutal murdering of innocent children?

Since the law of causality forbids the existence of an infinite regression, we must posit an uncaused "first cause." By definition, the only being that can fulfull these criteria is God (which god is a seperate question and worthy of another thread). In addition, a materialistic view of the universe self-destructs because it cannot allow for absolute truth.

We find ourselves presented with questions that must be answered, yet we cannot look to finite relative beings such as ourselves for the ultimate answers to ultimate questions. Evil is defined as "morally reprehensible," but who says so? I submit that it cannot be man, but I also submit that the index of horror points us back to the ultimate origin.

Thoughts?

Regards,
R

Originally posted by Ristar
I have a question regarding your latest comment: assuming that you are defining "morality" as a moral doctrine or system, do you believe that this system is created by you/society, or do you believe that the system transcends humanity itself?

Also, to bring the debate down to cases (please forgive me if this sounds offensive, but I can think of no better c ...[text shortened]... and chopped that baby into bits, would you say that I had done something evil?

Regards,
R

I'm going to take up on this one. If there is "morality", then it is all persuasive throughout the animal kingdom as well. It is the very basis of social groups, and would therefore not be unique to man. For example, cheats or theives are often castigated by others with the group in many higher ape species. It's not unique to humans.

Of course, morality can also be explained evolutionarily, without the need of a higher power. Anything which helps the organism pass its genes on will be favoured. If that is living in groups, then those organisms that live in groups will be favoured. If that is recognising and punishing cheats, then those organisms which recoginise and punish cheats within their groups will be favoured.

Originally posted by xpoferens
If evil does not exist, why does "wrong" or "bad" have to exist?

Because we live in a universe where not everything falls within our personal tastes. Some of the things that happen are not to our design and we label those things "bad". Some people (such as our hypothetical baby, presumably) have a "bad day". There was nothing wrong with the day - many others experienced the same day, and some of those found it to be particularly good, in fact. It's just that the things which happenned within day which our person has a personal problem with.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm going to take up on this one. If there is "morality", then it is all persuasive throughout the animal kingdom as well. It is the very basis of social groups, and would therefore not be unique to man. For example, cheats or theives are often castigated by others with the group in many higher ape species. It's not unique to humans.

Of course, m ...[text shortened]... hen those organisms which recoginise and punish cheats within their groups will be favoured.

I realise that many people do not feel it necessary to invoke a higher power, but, referring to my post immediately above, we might very well ask the question, "If there is morality or evil/good, where did the concepts come from?" God is, by definition, a necessary being because the materialistic view is self-defeating and an infinite regression is a logical impossibility.

As for evolution, is it not appropriate to specify which type of evolution? At this point, all I would object to is atheistic evolution. At least in general principle, I would have less of a problem with the idea of God directing evolution (but again, another topic).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Because we live in a universe where not everything falls within our personal tastes. Some of the things that happen are not to our design and we label those things "bad". Some people (such as our hypothetical baby, presumably) have a "bad day". There was nothing wrong with the day - many others experienced the same day, and some of those found it to st that the things which happenned within day which our person has a personal problem with.

As an example, if you were about to be devoured by members of a tribe in the back country of Irian Jaya, would you consider that an act of cruelty or merely an expression of their culture?

You might very well object to being eaten, but the tribesmen, according to their culture, may very well challenge your assertion and say that it is only right and proper for them to devour you. Who is right? The law of non-contradiction states that you cannot both be right.

All moral denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind. The law of non-contradiction posits a set of absolutes. Where did they come from? This universe might have been one where killing babies was a good thing. But it isn't. Why isn't it? Where did the absolutes come from? Certainly not from man and certainly not from time plus matter plus chance. How can the truth exist and be determined except where there is an absolute moral law that transcends our personal preference? Where did the moral law come from?

Thoughts?

Regards,
R

Originally posted by Ristar
As an example, if you were about to be devoured by members of a tribe in the back country of Irian Jaya, would you consider that an act of cruelty or merely an expression of their culture?

You might very well object to being eaten, but the tribesmen, according to their culture, may very well challenge your assertion and say that it is only right and proper ...[text shortened]... scends our personal preference? Where did the moral law come from?

Thoughts?

Regards,
R

In your example of the Irian Jayan natives (no longer Irian Jaya by the way, but West Papua), why does there need to be someone right and someone wrong. In the context of two different cultures both are right. That doesn't help you as you get eaten, but nor does it make the natives wrong for doing the eating, if that's a part of their cultural practice.
(And presumably if it is a part of their cultural practice, there's a good reason for doing it - at least as they see it.)

Of course, from our perspective, being eaten by anyone is not a good thing, so we would call that wrong and bad.

Law of non-contradiction? What the hell is that?

As for why the universe isn't one where killing babies is a good thing:
1. It isn't because it would be self-defeating. If you kill babies, pretty soon there aren't going to be any of you left. Your species kills itself out of existence.
2. Some historical records suggest instances of babies being killed - babies of enemies, babies of non-believers, or whatever. So, we may well live in a universe where this can and does happen. This may be a good thing in some circumstances - at least, as the people performing these killings see it.

Which gets back to my point about evil.
The things we see as good or bad are probably relative things.
The crashing of planes into skyscrapers is going to be seen as bad by some. For others - the people who did it or supported them - it will seen as good.
This doesn't make it 'evil'.

Originally posted by Ristar
And horror is a legitimate response. But we must ask ourselves the question, "Why do I feel the way I do?" Why are you horrified?

Some would invoke God's influence, but many would not. What are the alternatives? Your upbringing, your genes, society? But where did they come from?

In fact, let us bring it back to the ultimate cause, the origin of the un at the index of horror points us back to the ultimate origin.

Thoughts?

Regards,
R

Since the law of causality forbids the existence of an infinite regression, we must posit an uncaused "first cause."

I don’t think that an infinite regression is illogical per se, though it has long been held to be philosophically “detestable.” And so people propose, by fiat, a “first cause” somewhere, simply to end the regression. (If this is done provisonally, for the sake of pursuing the causal chain as far as we presently can--with recognition of why it's being done, and that it may need to be modified--then I probably wouldn't have a problem with that kind of pragmatic decision.)


The inference seems something like:

(1) Without a necessary first cause, there is an infinite regression.

(2) If there is an infinite regression, we do not have an “ultimate” causal explanation.

(3) There ought to be an ultimate causal explanation.

(4) Therefore there must be a necessary first cause.


Since the universe (cosmos, as the all-of-all-of it) is no more a thing-in-itself as is a group of rocks a thing-in-itself (i.e., "the group" )* above and beyond the individual members of the group, their relations, etc. (e.g. it is not like a jar containing a group of bugs), if one wants to impose a first cause, it could stop at the universe [U] itself.

Basically, if there is no bar on proposing an extra-U necessary being, there is no bar on proposing that U has the properties, that are outside (transcendental to) our intellectual access, that make up such a “necessary being”—U itself.

We find ourselves presented with questions that must be answered, yet we cannot look to finite relative beings such as ourselves for the ultimate answers to ultimate questions.

Why must there be an answer to such metaphysical questions? Simply because we desire one? Or because life would seem more satisfactory if there was one? Or because it would be efficacious to have one? You seem to assume that there “must” be an answer, and proceed from that assumption to construct whatever metaphysical argument you need in order to provide one (in this case, a version of the cosmological argument). That is no “proof” of your answer.

Sometimes, "We don't know" is a good answer...

* This is the error of thinking that we need to find a "thing" for every noun.

Originally posted by Ristar
I realise that many people do not feel it necessary to invoke a higher power, but, referring to my post immediately above, we might very well ask the question, "If there is morality or evil/good, where did the concepts come from?" God is, by definition, a necessary being because the materialistic view is self-defeating and an infinite regression is a logical ...[text shortened]... ld have less of a problem with the idea of God directing evolution (but again, another topic).

I like your post. I understand peoples requirements to know "where" morals come from. My own feeling is that there are both proximate and ultimate "wheres". The proximate "where" is from our human environment. We learn our morality from our family, from our friends, from the people we encounter. As the cannabal example nicely proves, morals are not absolute.

The ultimate "where" is lodged firmly in the biological evolution of the mind. It is very firmly an ability developed (evolved) over generations towards "nice" behaviour. Dawkins talks on a similar subject in many of his books, especially in the evolution of cooperation. "Nice" individuals are favoured over "nasty" individuals, because to be nice means that you get to live comfortably within a society, which is of course beneficial to your genes. Nasty individuals get into more trouble, and probably have more fights which cost energy and risk injury, they may be expelled from the social group, they may lose privalidges. Being nasty is a bad thing for the group too. It leads to decreased productivity (for foraging, hunting, or whatever). The blame for this can, and will, be attributable back to the nasty individual. Brains have developed particular sets of chemical cues to tell the individual when it is being nice (as it was taught by its parent) and when it is being naughty. We call these things "satisfaction" and "guilt". The cannabal savages allow us a 2nd crack at the proverbial whip too here though. We can note that a particular environmental condition (low protein environment) has lead to a particular behaviour (eating strangers, but not family) being morally permissible - not something that an omniscient god would surely allow. It is morally permissible evolutionarily because it represents a "need" for society to suppliment their protein intake. Successful past organisms have exploited this protein source which has many benefits and few problems. The benefit is obvious, but the lack of moral implication is interesting. Because the individual being eaten is not related to any member of the group there is no bad feeling within the group towards eating the outsider. One might ask why not all humans feel this way? Well, humans have spent the vast majority of their evolution living in small family groups, with cities only really a major feature of the last 100 years or so. Our brains think of small groups (one of the reasons that most people only inhabit a small zone within a city) of individuals, and for most of eternity we have been related to them. For most people for most of history, if someone ate someone they knew it'd probably be someone they were related to. It is the exceptional circumstances (low protein environment, possibly low parasite load too) which surrounds our cannabals which makes it evolutionarily, and hence morally permissible to eat people.

Originally posted by amannion
In your example of the Irian Jayan natives (no longer Irian Jaya by the way, but West Papua), why does there need to be someone right and someone wrong. In the context of two different cultures both are right. That doesn't help you as you get eaten, but nor does it make the natives wrong for doing the eating, if that's a part of their cultural practice.
(A ople who did it or supported them - it will seen as good.
This doesn't make it 'evil'.

You raise what is precisely my point, my friend. From a purely human standpoint, one cannot say that you are right and I am wrong for there is no point of reference.

As for the law of non-contradiction, we may define it in several different ways:
* In logical symbology, it would read ~(A^~A) or "not not A and not A."
* In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
* Or in modern parlance, a thing cannot be and not be at the same time.
* To generalize, one can say that the same question cannot elicit two opposite unqualified answers.

For example if I say my car is parked in my garage, I am not at the same time saying that it is not parked in my garage.

If you were to ask my wife "Are you pregnant?" and she was to say "Yes" and I was to say "No," what would go through your mind? You would probably say things like "They have trouble in their marriage" or "They're fooling with me" or "They've got mental problems" or some such.

You certainly would not conclude that your question had been answered. In the end, it has nothing to do with preference but with what best describes reality. The minute you attempt to denounce the law of non-contradiction you wind up affirming it.

As to the points about evil: because one culture is horrified at cannibalism and another embraces it does not prove that morals are relative, only that people's feelings about actions are relative. We must be careful about what we define as real. Whether we embrace it as good or not from a human viewpoint, the fact remains that a human being has been devoured. We must look to absolute truth because rational certainty cannot be achieved from a limited viewpoint such as ours.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Since the law of causality forbids the existence of an infinite regression, we must posit an uncaused "first cause."

I don’t think that an infinite regression is illogical per se, though it has long been held to be philosophically “detestable.” And so people propose, by fiat, a “first cause” somewhere, simply to end the regression. (If thi ...[text shortened]... ...

* This is the error of thinking that we need to find a "thing" for every noun.[/b]

The main problem with an infinite regression is that it is philosophically incoherent. For example, in an infinite series of dominos, an infinite number of dominoes would have to fall before any single domino fell. Thus no single event would ever take place. Yet we find that events do take place. How are we to explain the fact that they have taken place at all unless there is a definite point of origin?

As for the necessity of meaning and purpose, this smuggles in the idea that life must cohere. If one says this is not so, that life does not need to be coherent then one need only ask the question, "All right, when I respond to you, do you want my answer to be coherent or may I be incoherent?" Is it not reasonble to say that intelligent dialog (such as we are striving for in this thread) can only take place if we adhere to this rule? Otherwise, how can we even debate publically affecting issues?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I like your post. I understand peoples requirements to know "where" morals come from. My own feeling is that there are both proximate and ultimate "wheres". The proximate "where" is from our human environment. We learn our morality from our family, from our friends, from the people we encounter. As the cannabal example nicely proves, morals are not which makes it evolutionarily, and hence morally permissible to eat people.

Thanks for the compliment, my good friend. I appreciate the civility more than I can say.

I agree with you when you mention that proximate and ultimate senses of morality exist (assuming I am understanding you correctly). Human beings are finite, limited, and relative. These are the consequences of being an organism bound in space and time. We experience reality successively and thus have an incredibly limited viewpoint. In fact, I submit that it is impossible for us to know the ultimate truth... unless it had been revealed to us (which is just what the Bible and other theistic volumes posit).

As I mentioned previously, from a high-level standpoint, the idea that different people's reactions to actions proves that good and evil are relative does not follow. This merely proves that people's reactions are different towards the same actions.

However, you have approached it from a purely biological standpoint. Since I am no biologist or anthropologist, I would like to ask you a question: do you believe that human beings can rise above their genes and environment, i.e. do we have a choice? If not, how would you explain the idea of one person "going native," i.e. choosing to abandon a culture in favor of another one one that may be, in some aspects, diametrically opposed to his previous one? If you do believe that we have a choice, then does this not posit a "law above our laws" that governs our choices beyond human culture?

Unfortunately, genetic analysis is of compartatively limited value when assessing abstract concepts such as good and evil. After all, physical scientists will be the first to admit that physical science cannot explain what came before the universe. It can only take us so far. If the existence of the soul is posited and taken into account it can just as readily be said that the genes follow the dictates of the unseen world and are a consequence rather than the cause of our motives. The body could be thought of as the vehicle and the soul as the driver. This is a question that genetics cannot answer for it lies beyond the scope of biology.

In any event, a purely materialistic explanation of the universe defeats itself because it cannot in any way provide for absolute truth. Also an infinite regression is incoherent and cannot apply to reality (see my previous immediate post). Does it not appear reasonable that we must continue to posit a first cause or we cannot even begin to debate?

Also, please don't misunderstand me. I loved biology in high school. It's fascinating, and your knowledge impresses me greatly. I don't know if you're a professor on the subject, but something tells me you know your stuff. 🙂

Regards,
R

Originally posted by Ristar
The main problem with an infinite regression is that it is philosophically incoherent. For example, in an infinite series of dominos, an infinite number of dominoes would have to fall before any single domino fell. Thus no single event would ever take place. Yet we find that events do take place. How are we to explain the fact that they have taken place a lace if we adhere to this rule? Otherwise, how can we even debate publically affecting issues?

Your domino example is a question of metaphysical (and in this case physical) necessity, not one of logical necessity. Remember, you are talking here about how causation works physically within the universe, not causation as it pertains to the U itself (wherein the problems lie). There’s a name for this fallacy, but I can’t recall it offhand (maybe someone else will oblige), but it definitely is an analogy-problem (that is, the analogy is—and perhaps must be—far more limited than what it’s supposed to an analogue of; there may not be a proper analogy for the whole universe).

Coherency presents, I think, a more sophisticated form of the cosmological argument. However— (1) again, the universe is not a “thing” in itself (and therefore itself is not/cannot be treated as an “effect” in need of a cause), but is a descriptive designation like “group.” So there is no need for an extra-U necessary being, even if there is a need for an “ultimate causal factor” within U. (2) Given that, there is no need that such an “ultimate causal factor” lay outside (or transcendent to) U itself.

With regard to coherency, we find that in the universe. You are seeking an answer to the metaphysical question of “why” we do—an ultimate and complete explanation for it—and you are assuming that there is such an answer available to us. However, a necessary being is embedded in the assumption that there is such an answer (i.e., there is no such answer possible without a necessary being)—so the existence of a necessary being is already assumed as part of the premise that there is an answer; therefore to conclude from that premise that there is a necessary being is to beg the question.

EDIT: In terms of restrictions on coherent speech, I would assert, for example, that it is incoherent to speak of the universe as a “thing,” or an "effect." We do so by convention, and do not recognize the incoherency since it is presented in a valid grammatical structure. But, in fact it is no more coherent (meaningful) than saying that the universe is a transcendant turtle. Yes, we do have limits on coherent speech.

Originally posted by Ristar
You raise what is precisely my point, my friend. From a purely human standpoint, one cannot say that you are right and I am wrong for there is no point of reference.

As for the law of non-contradiction, we may define it in several different ways:
* In logical symbology, it would read ~(A^~A) or "not not A and not A."
* In the words of Aristotle, "One ca ...[text shortened]... rational certainty cannot be achieved from a limited viewpoint such as ours.

Well not exactly.
I can say I'm right and from my perspective I am.
Conversely, someone who holds a differing moral viewpoint can say they're right and they are.

I understoof what you meant by non-contradiction but applying it to this area is not useful. Two competing moral viewpoints are not cars in a garage.

And I disagree with your point about moral relativism as opposed to feeelings relativism. Okay, a human being has been eaten. But so what? What's the absolute truth you talk about, other than that fact - a human has been eaten. There is no other absolute. Whether it's wrong or not is entirely relative.

Originally posted by vistesd
Your domino example is a question of metaphysical (and in this case physical) necessity, not one of logical necessity. Remember, you are talking here about how causation works physically within the universe, not causation as it pertains to the U itself (wherein the problems lie). There’s a name for this fallacy, but I can’t recall it offhand (maybe ...[text shortened]... saying that the universe is a transcendant turtle. Yes, we do have limits on coherent speech.

I agree with you in saying that you cannot point to the universe and say "there it is" in the same way that you could a tree or a rock. Indeed many parts of the universe are closed to our observation. However, I believe we can safely say that the universe exists.

As to origin and its necessity: would it be your assertion that the universe had a point of origin in the Big Bang (or a similar event)? If it had no point of origin, how would you explain the overall loss of energy that occurs over time according to the laws of thermodynamics, specifically the move toward entropy or "heat death," and simultaneously avoid the idea of describing the universe as like unto a one-ended stick? And if you do believe that it had a point of origin, what was responsible for its origin?

Once again, either a first cause or an infinite regression are the only possible alternatives that I can see.

Unless you also posit an unseen element to the universe, i.e. a metaphysical one, then all that is left is time plus matter plus chance. This idea self-destructs as absolute truth cannot exist and therefore you cannot assert your own view that time plus matter plus chance is all there is.

As for the the actual word "universe," it would probably be best described in terms of its roots, i.e. "unity" and "diversity." The quest for unity in diversity has been the greatest philosophical challenge of all time. Our own modern times are a great example. But you can only have true unity in diversity if there is unity and diversity in the first cause.

Further thoughts?

Regards,
R