Can morality arise from natural selection?

[Prophet]

Is it completely irrelevant to the conversation that what Doors is highlighting as what must be the path to selflessness leads to some pretty selfish behavior?

Does Doors present any examples of selfless behaviors in his model of selflessness which destroys all self-interest? If any of these behaviors can to be found selfish, he has posited a definition of selflessness which is not mutually exclusive from selfishness.

He ignored when I asked how he would go about controlling a selfless politician. I found his restatement of "lack of self-interest makes you easier to control" unconvincing. I wanted his actual steps to control a selfless man. He has presented nothing.

He ignored when I pointed out how his model of selflessness leads directly to selfishness, but at least he seemed to understand enough of my view to respect me enough to cease the wave of insult.

 

[Alex_G]

I will confess that I have great difficulty in understanding your philosophy here, and I have serious doubts as to whether it is founded on solid logic. This isn't religion and its not science, yet it seems to have the worst elements of both.

Example: Fundy Christian says "God is way too big for any of us to understand, so lets just say that God works in mysterious ways."

How much different is it when you say that the mind is so complex that we should allow flexibility? If your position is reasonable, than the fundy's is too.

I am claiming to have a comprehensive knowledge of morality. It contains one rule. Be selfless. I am also claiming to have a comprehensive knowledge of the layout of the sentient mind and the effects morality has upon it. I laid this knowledge out in my first thread on this forum entitled "On the nature of Consciousness, the source of morality".

Apologies for the delayed response, i hadn’t seen your post.

I think it’s perfectly reasonable and rational to state the very real fact that we still know very little about the human mind. Being aware of what you don’t know is the first step to wisdom, and rather than forcing an explanation that doesn’t fit very well, better to take a cautionary or reserved stance when faced with the 'why' questions, especially concerning something like morality. I don’t think evolution is very useful when thinking about morality.

(Just to note, the difference between me and the fundamentalist is that they make the logical error of appealing to an ignorance to make a positive claim, such that 'i don’t know, therefore god must have done it as he works mysteriously'. That’s different from just saying that we don’t have all the answers, and that odd or inadequate explanations today might very well suggest knowledge yet to be discovered that might shed better light on the issue.)

My point was that while the origin of man was by evolutionary means, as with all creatures, certain things that characterise our lives today aren’t necessarily best explained by reference to this process. We act and behave in many ways that aren’t strictly guided by a process of gene preservation. That freedom and the things encompassed by it, which is heavily linked to the capabilities of our mind, don’t seem very well explained by referencing evolution.

There’s a hell of a lot more data and capacity in the human mind than there is in the genome. With 100 billion neurones each with around 10, 000 synapses, the number of possible permutations are in the range that exceeds the number of particles in the known universe. That’s some serious complexity, from which consciousness, identity, morality, the very essence of human life comes from. Of course genes are the basic source of it, but a lot of things happen in going from a genome to fully functioning human mind. Morality is very much tied up with this complex neurological entity and I don’t think evolution is a good explanation.

As a note on morality, I think it essentially boils down to empathy when concerning a lot of the core issues, and an ability to connect with other creatures on a fundamental level. To have their lives echo within your own mind via mirror neurones is to have the sensibilities that make you a moral creature.

Alex

 

[Prophet]

Do you have a non-vague answer for what separates good and evil? The problem with vague theories like the one you posit above is that they cannot be tested.

 

[1137]

Ha, no worries! Best of luck on the finals!

Haha thanks

 

[1137]

Is it completely irrelevant to the conversation that what Doors is highlighting as what must be the path to selflessness leads to some pretty selfish behavior?

Does Doors present any examples of selfless behaviors in his model of selflessness which destroys all self-interest? If any of these behaviors can to be found selfish, he has posited a definition of selflessness which is not mutually exclusive from selfishness.

He ignored when I asked how he would go about controlling a selfless politician. I found his restatement of "lack of self-interest makes you easier to control" unconvincing. I wanted his actual steps to control a selfless man. He has presented nothing.

He ignored when I pointed out how his model of selflessness leads directly to selfishness, but at least he seemed to understand enough of my view to respect me enough to cease the wave of insult.

Now I remember why I don't debate with children. What are you accomplishing by trying to specifically point me out? If you have something to prove do it elsewhere.

I don't know how selfless can be selfish. I have explained how selflessness makes one easier to control repeatedly, and since you have no criticisms you've ignored it. And I ignore illogical contradictions, like selflessness leads to selfishness. I will quote all my explanations AGAIN asap.

 

[Prophet]

You are a lobbyist for an oil company. Mr. X is a selfless politician who puts the good of all before his own. How do you control Mr. X to vote in the ways you want him to?

 

[waitasec]

Before evolving how can we have understood morality?

our ability to reason perhaps...

 

[Prophet]

If your reasoning has no common sense real world application like I'm trying to get out of you here, it is worthless.

 

[1137]

What I've ACTUALLY said.

If one gives up self interest they become easier to control. It is narcissism, they feel like martyrs. It also allows for self victimization and therefore pity from fellow confirmists and a greater sense of community.

If you are no looking out for yourself, conforming to a community, allowing people to walk on you, etc, you have little self-interest and therefore are easier to control. If you care about your freedom, spirituality, Self in general, how will someone control you? .

I said if you have no self-interest you are easy to control. We are not talking about selfishness and selflessness, we are talking about having self-interest. You say you are aware of the differences, but evidence says otherwise.

1. If you have no self interest, there is no reason to care about yourself.
2. Without the self (selflessness), there is no individuality.
3. So, with no self interest there is no individuality.
4. With no individuality, there is no freedom.
5. So, with no self interest there is no freedom.
6. If you have no freedom, you are easier to or already complety controlled.
Therefore, with no self interest you are easier to control..

The argument blatantly states that lack of self interest leads to complete selflessness which leads to loss of individuality which makes you easier to control. You can speak for me as much as you want, but that doesn't mean they are my words. If you would like to argue against what I am saying, not your straw men, I'll be here.

Lack of self-interest leads to selflessness. Accordingly, selflessness destroys self-interest, as you do not care about the Self.

Lack of self-interest contributes to selflessness, which kills individuality. If you are selfless, your self interest has been completely destroyed.

Lack of Self-interest is part of selflesaness, but not totally selfless. But, If you are totally selfless, there is already no self interest.

I would say selfless is having no interest in the Self. Example is one who always out helps others but doesn't take care of themselves

Actually, naturally we, learn self-interest and even selfishness depending on the circumstances. Animals naturally put self preservation above all. With selflessness we would have no desire for survival

Actually helpless animals get killed. If you cannot protect yourself in the wild you die.

Alright now,

You are a lobbyist for an oil company. Mr. X is a selfless politician who puts the good of all before his own. How do you control Mr. X to vote in the ways you want him to?

This has nothing to do with our debate. Politics is about the whole. If we are talking about Self, it must be personal. This is a reach if I ever saw one. Now,
If mr x is a person who owns a farm, yet he has no self interest, a person can take his land easily. Manipulate him by saying it is for the greater good or any number of things. Mr x is a blind and passive man. However, if mr x has self interest he will not give up his land so easily.

Now, any relevant, impersonal attacks on my actual arguments based on what I actually say would br welcomed. But if you have none, it is unnacceptable to change or ignore what I say.

 

[1137]

our ability to reason perhaps...

Very true

 

[Songbird]

You are a lobbyist for an oil company. Mr. X is a selfless politician who puts the good of all before his own. How do you control Mr. X to vote in the ways you want him to?

Oxymoron. It'll never happen.

 

[waitasec]

If survival was the only drive at work here, I highly doubt we'd see beings evolving to be helpless at birth and reliant upon the love of parents for survival. It would seem like brute nature survival would knock that weak trait right out of the gene pool.

the innate sense of empathy solves that problem...

 

[Prophet]

You have repeatedly insulted me and derided my opinions with insufficient cause for either. What more reason do I need to defend myself?

Your insinuation that I am picking on poor you after you've called me narcissistic, illiterate, and stupid is rich really. You call yourself a philosopher? Is constant use of insult the mark of the philosopher in your opinion? Shouldn't a philosopher be able to make a point without being a jerk?

If you are representative of the philosopher, I should want to avoid philosophy altogether, as it seems to make its bones purely on ad hominem.

 

[Alex_G]

Do you have a non-vague answer for what separates good and evil? The problem with vague theories like the one you posit above is that they cannot be tested.

Not a formal theory in the scientific sense, never was, it was only a perspective, a viewpoint to share on the issue of morality and evolution, as the thread's OP was about.

Asking now for a theory of good and bad is a different question entirely.

 

[1137]

You have repeatedly insulted me and derided my opinions with insufficient cause for either. What more reason do I need to defend myself?

Your insinuation that I am picking on poor you after you've called me narcissistic, illiterate, and stupid is rich really. You call yourself a philosopher? Is constant use of insult the mark of the philosopher in your opinion? Shouldn't a philosopher be able to make a point without being a jerk?

If you are representative of the philosopher, I should want to avoid philosophy altogether, as it seems to make its bones purely on ad hominem.

Self victimization and insult is not a sufficient criticism. Don't remember saying those things about you but a person with no self interest. Your childish defenses show you have self interest, therefore that doesn't apply to you. The constant use of logic and useful criticism is the mark of a philosopher, but when a person cannot even follow the debate it is hardy philosophical. I call you illiterate because you seemingly cannot read or understand what I say. I said you are childish because you argue the way my little cousin does. And I attack you personally because you bring nothing into the conversation thay we can discuss and make it personal.

Do not worry, you HAVE avoided philosophy all together.

In philosophy, respect is earned. Changing words, ignoring what is being said, providing irrelevant points, and giving absolutely no criticisms will not get respect. If you were in one of the philosophy classes I was they would have made you storm out crying. Which is why most drop. But speaking of phi class, I have three philosophy finals to take this week, so I have to study.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Oxymoron. It'll never happen.

A selfless anyone is impossible...

 

[1137]

A selfless anyone is impossible...

Well not impossible, but they wouldn't last long.

 

[Prophet]

Oxymoron. It'll never happen.

Perhaps.

My point is still obvious. Selflessness actually makes a person impossible to control, because there is nothing of value you can take from them or give away. Even threatening a selfless man's family which he loves dearly will not make a selfless man able to justify hurting others to spare his own loved ones.

It also applies to more than just politics.

If you want me to do something which I don't want to do, and I have reasoned myself into a position where I believe there is nothing you can give or take away from me of value, you will not move me.

 

[1137]

Perhaps.

My point is still obvious. Selflessness actually makes a person impossible to control, because there is nothing of value you can take from them or give away. Even threatening a selfless man's family which he loves dearly will not make a selfless man able to justify hurting others to spare his own loved ones.

It also applies to more than just politics.

If you want me to do something which I don't want to do, and I have reasoned myself into a position where I believe there is nothing you can give or take away from me of value, you will not move me.

If by selfless you mean NOTHING matters, you are correct. You can not control a person who is completely apathetic. But selflessness is not as radical as apathy.

 

[Prophet]

Well not impossible, but they wouldn't last long.

Laozi, Buddha, and Socrates all lived long lives. Jesus was only around a few years.

You don't understand anything you are talking about here.