The science of morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-12-2011, 08:10 PM
RE: The science of morality
Dan Dennett proposes Religion is like moral Viagra. Big Grin

FYI, if you can find a copy of the Atheist Tapes, I highly recommend the 6 part series.




It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 01:26 AM
RE: The science of morality
(13-12-2011 12:50 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Having said all of the above, does morality actually make sense? I am talking in very logical and scientific terms.Is morality is a form of special pleading? If a lion eating the gazelle is neither moral nor immoral, why would my eating a cow be a moral issue? If an animal species that wipes out another it is neither moral nor immoral, why would humans doing the same be a moral issue? Does anybody have a good argument for why human morality is NOT a logical fallacy based on emotional arguments and special pleading?

The reason why humans are considered morally responsible and animals are not, is simply because morality is a set of rules that dictate appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and the corresponding consequences for our actions. As such, people need to be able to enter into this social contract - this is why we don't consider a baby stealing another baby's toy to be immoral. To expect reciprocation for good behaviors, or punishment for bad behaviors from animals is unrealistic as they are not a part of our culture (in a sense that makes such a consideration realistic).

Behaviors may or may not be possibly called 'moral' in animal cultures, for example, a lioness may happen to consider a lion immoral for eating her young, but this level of thinking is unlikely and, importantly, irrelevant to us as it doesn't affect us.

As an analogy, it makes sense to apply table manners to humans because we can be expected to abide by the rules presented. But it's nonsensical to look down on our dog for not using the correct spoon appropriate for eating dog biscuits. And, at the end of day, that's all morals are: table manners.

(13-12-2011 12:50 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  Now, I am not saying all morality falls in that category. Notice that there are animal instincts, like self preservation, caring for the young, and forms of cooperation, that are evolutionary traits. Notice also that humans consider many of them moral issues. But why do we differentiate between the evolutionary instinct of animals and the moral imperatives of humans?

I'm skeptical of claims of an evolutionary basis for behaviors like cooperation, altruism and morality, etc. The arguments and evidence for them from evolutionary psychology are pretty weak, and they can usually be explained by more parsimonious domain-general principles.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2011, 05:31 AM
RE: The science of morality
(15-12-2011 01:26 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  I'm skeptical of claims of an evolutionary basis for behaviors like cooperation, altruism and morality, etc. The arguments and evidence for them from evolutionary psychology are pretty weak, and they can usually be explained by more parsimonious domain-general principles.

It depends on what you mean by "cooperation". Did you ever watch a pack of wolves hunting? Now that's what I call cooperation, with wolves playing roles during the attack and then splitting the prey fair and square based on performance. And in long term, the ones which learned to cooperate were more efficient and survived, while the lone wolves didn't do so well.

Wolves split the prey on a hierarchic level and each wolf eats a quality and quantity of food corresponding with their position in the pack. When a strong wolf gets injured, they do move it down the scale a few notches at least until it recovers, but they don't kill it off even if on the long run that would create a permanent high rank position for another wolf. In fact they do help the injured wolf recover, by cleaning the wounds and still providing some food because if it does recover, it is again useful to the others.

I'm not sure how much that counts for altruism, but, as I said before, nothing we ever do is selfless. Even when we try to act selfless we still have a selfish reason to do so. Showing mercy is sometimes just the wisest thing to do, from a wolf's perspective. And it's the same with us. We just took it further by lowering the importance of physical strength and prolonging our hopes to survive beyond the point in our life when we become useless. And I hope that you don't doubt selfishness as an evolutionary characteristic.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Malleus's post
15-12-2011, 10:47 AM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2011 12:00 PM by Chas.)
RE: The science of morality
(15-12-2011 01:26 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  I'm skeptical of claims of an evolutionary basis for behaviors like cooperation, altruism and morality, etc. The arguments and evidence for them from evolutionary psychology are pretty weak, and they can usually be explained by more parsimonious domain-general principles.

The evolutionary explanation is consistent with domain-general principles.
I don't think the evidence is weak, just that the theory is not yet very well fleshed out.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
15-12-2011, 11:59 AM
RE: The science of morality
(15-12-2011 01:26 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  The reason why humans are considered morally responsible and animals are not, is simply because morality is a set of rules that dictate appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and the corresponding consequences for our actions.
Again, how is it not special pleading? We are animals ourselves. Why should we apply to ourselves artificial codes of conduct based on arbitrary rules when the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't? We already have instinctual behaviors that contribute to our survival both as individuals (self preservation instinct, the instinct to reproduce, etc) and as social animals (cooperation, altruism, empathy). These behaviors already call in question cause and effect (if I don't take care of my young they die and my genes will die with me) without having to invoke "superior, intellectual moral philosophy".

Quote:As such, people need to be able to enter into this social contract - this is why we don't consider a baby stealing another baby's toy to be immoral. To expect reciprocation for good behaviors, or punishment for bad behaviors from animals is unrealistic as they are not a part of our culture (in a sense that makes such a consideration realistic).
Yes, we expect moral behavior from moral agents, that is from individuals with the capacity to understand and follow moral rules. But as I noted earlier, our behavior and decisions are the product of a physical system, our brain. There actually is not current proof that we have conscious control over our decisions. We have the illusion of it, we feel that's the case, but we can't actually demonstrate that in a given situation, we could have made any decision other than the one we made. This is, if I am not mistaken, Dennett's position. If we can't prove we actually could have made a different decision, then can we be expected to? Can we be punished for our decision?

Quote:I'm skeptical of claims of an evolutionary basis for behaviors like cooperation, altruism and morality, etc. The arguments and evidence for them from evolutionary psychology are pretty weak, and they can usually be explained by more parsimonious domain-general principles.
I am sorry to hear, but maybe you should research the subject more. The case for morality being evolutionary, and for specific parts of the brain being directly involved and related to what we call "morality" is exceptionally strong.

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sy2502's post
16-12-2011, 04:42 AM
RE: The science of morality
(15-12-2011 05:31 AM)Malleus Wrote:  It depends on what you mean by "cooperation". Did you ever watch a pack of wolves hunting? Now that's what I call cooperation, with wolves playing roles during the attack and then splitting the prey fair and square based on performance. And in long term, the ones which learned to cooperate were more efficient and survived, while the lone wolves didn't do so well.

Wolves split the prey on a hierarchic level and each wolf eats a quality and quantity of food corresponding with their position in the pack. When a strong wolf gets injured, they do move it down the scale a few notches at least until it recovers, but they don't kill it off even if on the long run that would create a permanent high rank position for another wolf. In fact they do help the injured wolf recover, by cleaning the wounds and still providing some food because if it does recover, it is again useful to the others.

I'm not sure how much that counts for altruism, but, as I said before, nothing we ever do is selfless. Even when we try to act selfless we still have a selfish reason to do so. Showing mercy is sometimes just the wisest thing to do, from a wolf's perspective. And it's the same with us. We just took it further by lowering the importance of physical strength and prolonging our hopes to survive beyond the point in our life when we become useless. And I hope that you don't doubt selfishness as an evolutionary characteristic.

Except wolf behavior is a good example of what I'm getting at - that we have to be careful when ascribing cooperative behaviors to evolved or learnt principles. Wolves don't actually form a hierarchy in the way traditional dominance or pack theorists originally believed, and members aren't awarded more resources due to being the "alpha", since the "alpha" pair in any group is simply the breeding pair - the mother and father. They don't fight to get to the top, and they can't drop to a lower "rung", since by virtue of being the breeding pair, they are necessarily the parents. This is why wolf researchers these days refrain from using the term "alpha", and use "breeding pair" instead, as it eliminates the connotations of dominance battles.

This does leave the question of how much of the cooperation is learnt and how much is evolved, but I'm not really aware of any studies which have attempted to tease them apart.

(15-12-2011 10:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  The evolutionary explanation is consistent with domain-general principles.
I don't think the evidence is weak, just that the theory is not yet very well fleshed out.

If they are consistent with domain-general principles, then it doesn't make sense to say that morality is evolved, in the same way it doesn't make sense to say that "riding a bike" is an evolved trait.

The arguments for an evolved morality, like those from Pinker or Haidt etc, rely on specific evolved brain modules that correspond to moral intuitions. The idea of domain-general principles controlling moral behavior contradicts most evolutionary psych research I've read in the area.


(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 01:26 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  The reason why humans are considered morally responsible and animals are not, is simply because morality is a set of rules that dictate appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and the corresponding consequences for our actions.
Again, how is it not special pleading? We are animals ourselves. Why should we apply to ourselves artificial codes of conduct based on arbitrary rules when the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't?

Because we find them useful. Why do we apply table manners to humans but not to our pets? Simply because we don't care if animals make a mess of their food, but humans spilling their food all over our table is undesirable.

It's a matter of pragmatics and practicality.

(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  We already have instinctual behaviors that contribute to our survival both as individuals (self preservation instinct, the instinct to reproduce, etc) and as social animals (cooperation, altruism, empathy). These behaviors already call in question cause and effect (if I don't take care of my young they die and my genes will die with me) without having to invoke "superior, intellectual moral philosophy".

I don't think we have any survival or reproductive instincts, and I've already stated my skepticism of cooperative, altruistic and empathetic instincts.

Morals are simply abstract rules that make social life easier. Applying them to animals holds no advantage or benefit to us. (This is, of course, assuming that we believe morals are a meaningful concept, which is something that can be questioned).

(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
Quote:As such, people need to be able to enter into this social contract - this is why we don't consider a baby stealing another baby's toy to be immoral. To expect reciprocation for good behaviors, or punishment for bad behaviors from animals is unrealistic as they are not a part of our culture (in a sense that makes such a consideration realistic).
Yes, we expect moral behavior from moral agents, that is from individuals with the capacity to understand and follow moral rules. But as I noted earlier, our behavior and decisions are the product of a physical system, our brain. There actually is not current proof that we have conscious control over our decisions. We have the illusion of it, we feel that's the case, but we can't actually demonstrate that in a given situation, we could have made any decision other than the one we made. This is, if I am not mistaken, Dennett's position. If we can't prove we actually could have made a different decision, then can we be expected to? Can we be punished for our decision?

We don't need free will for punishment to be a valid method of behavioral change. I recommend reading up on Skinner when it comes to applying deterministic rules to morality. Essentially, even if our behavior is an automatic cause-effect type system, it still makes sense for us to attempt to reduce behaviors we don't like, and encourage behaviors that we do like. That is, even if we don't have control over our decisions, it's still true that most of us dislike the idea of being murdered. So if a person is a murderer, it naturally follows that we should either try to discourage their behavior, eliminate their behavior after it occurs, or lock them away so that they can't do it again.

(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
Quote:I'm skeptical of claims of an evolutionary basis for behaviors like cooperation, altruism and morality, etc. The arguments and evidence for them from evolutionary psychology are pretty weak, and they can usually be explained by more parsimonious domain-general principles.
I am sorry to hear, but maybe you should research the subject more. The case for morality being evolutionary, and for specific parts of the brain being directly involved and related to what we call "morality" is exceptionally strong.

I've done a fair amount of research into the area, thanks. Some of the best research comes from Frans de Waal's comparative psych studies, but he would be the first to admit that his evidence is far from conclusive. I'm interested in what research you think is 'exceptionally strong' in this area though (however, if you're referencing someone like Pinker or Dawkins, then there's not much point linking it here).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr.Samsa's post
16-12-2011, 05:46 AM
RE: The science of morality
(16-12-2011 04:42 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  I've done a fair amount of research into the area, thanks. Some of the best research comes from Frans de Waal's comparative psych studies, but he would be the first to admit that his evidence is far from conclusive. I'm interested in what research you think is 'exceptionally strong' in this area though (however, if you're referencing someone like Pinker or Dawkins, then there's not much point linking it here).

There's Mr. Samsa, taking care of business - I did warn you peeps about this cat - glad to see you back. Your place, with that Frenchie questioning my "right to call myself an atheist..." That wasn't a good start. Big Grin

Anyhoo - here's what I got. Morality is simple, evolved control structure for individual decision making. I'm thinking some kind of chemical interaction that tells a cell yes/no when the cell questions, do again?

You got a scientific understanding of terms and conditionals I have been collecting as a naive philosopher.

I've been doing amateur science with my morality since March, when objective reality started to act in a peculiar fashion in interaction with this subject's will. If I know what I think I know, I'm onto some superfly shit; any kinda update to my naive philosophy is win/win.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 08:45 AM
RE: The science of morality
(16-12-2011 04:42 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  Except wolf behavior is a good example of what I'm getting at - that we have to be careful when ascribing cooperative behaviors to evolved or learnt principles. Wolves don't actually form a hierarchy in the way traditional dominance or pack theorists originally believed, and members aren't awarded more resources due to being the "alpha", since the "alpha" pair in any group is simply the breeding pair - the mother and father. They don't fight to get to the top, and they can't drop to a lower "rung", since by virtue of being the breeding pair, they are necessarily the parents. This is why wolf researchers these days refrain from using the term "alpha", and use "breeding pair" instead, as it eliminates the connotations of dominance battles.

This does leave the question of how much of the cooperation is learnt and how much is evolved, but I'm not really aware of any studies which have attempted to tease them apart.

Dude, that is simply wrong. The alphas usually eat the liver and other internal organs: tastier, easier to digest, easier to reach, better nutrient content, higher calories. The others eat various parts of the prey based strictly on their rank and each of them protects their established ratio fiercely from the others while the others constantly try to "trespass".

I saw a documentary about a guy who managed to infiltrate himself in a pack of wolves and they all accepted him as just another wolf because he had the proper body language and attitude. He had his own rank in the pack.

His established source of food was the upper thigh of one of the back legs of whatever they hunted and he, just like the rest of the pack had to grit his teeth and grunt and growl and bite when another wolf tried to approach his share. He explained that this moment is critical and even if he is full and he couldn't have another bite or if that animal has been dead for a while and is absolutely disgusting he still needs to guard that portion established as his own to keep his rank and he will leave it as "leftovers" for the lower wolves, but not before defending it and claiming it every single time they hunt or find another animal.

They do have constant power struggle and distribution of resources based on rank - just like us. Ranking is more complex that Mom+Dad and children. In fact both the mom and the dad positions are challenged regularly and they are not necessarily the only ones who reproduce.

After "lunch" the wolves have a "peace ritual" to make sure that the growling and biting was only about food and not to be taken personally so they will make body contact and keep each other company for a while to make sure their social relations haven't been damaged.

The man told the crew that during his first months when he had constant power struggles to make sure that he can get a piece of meat he could actually enjoy - he still had to eat it raw off the carcass, but at least it was large and nourishing enough.

During those months they injured him pretty badly every once in a while and he went to civilization to get surgery. The wolves disapproved it and they gently removed his stitches and kept his wounds clean and he said he heals faster like that, and it tightens the bonds between him and the pack so he allows the wolves to care for his injuries.

So there: altruism too.

Oh, no Hallucinations 4:11 says the 'gilded sheep should be stewed in rat blood' but Morons 5:16 contradicts it. (Chas)

I would never shake a baby unless the recipe requires it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Malleus's post
16-12-2011, 11:54 AM
RE: The science of morality
(16-12-2011 04:42 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 05:31 AM)Malleus Wrote:  It depends on what you mean by "cooperation". Did you ever watch a pack of wolves hunting? Now that's what I call cooperation, with wolves playing roles during the attack and then splitting the prey fair and square based on performance. And in long term, the ones which learned to cooperate were more efficient and survived, while the lone wolves didn't do so well.

Wolves split the prey on a hierarchic level and each wolf eats a quality and quantity of food corresponding with their position in the pack. When a strong wolf gets injured, they do move it down the scale a few notches at least until it recovers, but they don't kill it off even if on the long run that would create a permanent high rank position for another wolf. In fact they do help the injured wolf recover, by cleaning the wounds and still providing some food because if it does recover, it is again useful to the others.

I'm not sure how much that counts for altruism, but, as I said before, nothing we ever do is selfless. Even when we try to act selfless we still have a selfish reason to do so. Showing mercy is sometimes just the wisest thing to do, from a wolf's perspective. And it's the same with us. We just took it further by lowering the importance of physical strength and prolonging our hopes to survive beyond the point in our life when we become useless. And I hope that you don't doubt selfishness as an evolutionary characteristic.

Except wolf behavior is a good example of what I'm getting at - that we have to be careful when ascribing cooperative behaviors to evolved or learnt principles. Wolves don't actually form a hierarchy in the way traditional dominance or pack theorists originally believed, and members aren't awarded more resources due to being the "alpha", since the "alpha" pair in any group is simply the breeding pair - the mother and father. They don't fight to get to the top, and they can't drop to a lower "rung", since by virtue of being the breeding pair, they are necessarily the parents. This is why wolf researchers these days refrain from using the term "alpha", and use "breeding pair" instead, as it eliminates the connotations of dominance battles.

This does leave the question of how much of the cooperation is learnt and how much is evolved, but I'm not really aware of any studies which have attempted to tease them apart.

(15-12-2011 10:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  The evolutionary explanation is consistent with domain-general principles.
I don't think the evidence is weak, just that the theory is not yet very well fleshed out.

If they are consistent with domain-general principles, then it doesn't make sense to say that morality is evolved, in the same way it doesn't make sense to say that "riding a bike" is an evolved trait.

The arguments for an evolved morality, like those from Pinker or Haidt etc, rely on specific evolved brain modules that correspond to moral intuitions. The idea of domain-general principles controlling moral behavior contradicts most evolutionary psych research I've read in the area.


(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
(15-12-2011 01:26 AM)Mr.Samsa Wrote:  The reason why humans are considered morally responsible and animals are not, is simply because morality is a set of rules that dictate appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and the corresponding consequences for our actions.
Again, how is it not special pleading? We are animals ourselves. Why should we apply to ourselves artificial codes of conduct based on arbitrary rules when the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't?

Because we find them useful. Why do we apply table manners to humans but not to our pets? Simply because we don't care if animals make a mess of their food, but humans spilling their food all over our table is undesirable.

It's a matter of pragmatics and practicality.

(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  We already have instinctual behaviors that contribute to our survival both as individuals (self preservation instinct, the instinct to reproduce, etc) and as social animals (cooperation, altruism, empathy). These behaviors already call in question cause and effect (if I don't take care of my young they die and my genes will die with me) without having to invoke "superior, intellectual moral philosophy".

I don't think we have any survival or reproductive instincts, and I've already stated my skepticism of cooperative, altruistic and empathetic instincts.

Morals are simply abstract rules that make social life easier. Applying them to animals holds no advantage or benefit to us. (This is, of course, assuming that we believe morals are a meaningful concept, which is something that can be questioned).

(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
Quote:As such, people need to be able to enter into this social contract - this is why we don't consider a baby stealing another baby's toy to be immoral. To expect reciprocation for good behaviors, or punishment for bad behaviors from animals is unrealistic as they are not a part of our culture (in a sense that makes such a consideration realistic).
Yes, we expect moral behavior from moral agents, that is from individuals with the capacity to understand and follow moral rules. But as I noted earlier, our behavior and decisions are the product of a physical system, our brain. There actually is not current proof that we have conscious control over our decisions. We have the illusion of it, we feel that's the case, but we can't actually demonstrate that in a given situation, we could have made any decision other than the one we made. This is, if I am not mistaken, Dennett's position. If we can't prove we actually could have made a different decision, then can we be expected to? Can we be punished for our decision?

We don't need free will for punishment to be a valid method of behavioral change. I recommend reading up on Skinner when it comes to applying deterministic rules to morality. Essentially, even if our behavior is an automatic cause-effect type system, it still makes sense for us to attempt to reduce behaviors we don't like, and encourage behaviors that we do like. That is, even if we don't have control over our decisions, it's still true that most of us dislike the idea of being murdered. So if a person is a murderer, it naturally follows that we should either try to discourage their behavior, eliminate their behavior after it occurs, or lock them away so that they can't do it again.

(15-12-2011 11:59 AM)sy2502 Wrote:  
Quote:I'm skeptical of claims of an evolutionary basis for behaviors like cooperation, altruism and morality, etc. The arguments and evidence for them from evolutionary psychology are pretty weak, and they can usually be explained by more parsimonious domain-general principles.
I am sorry to hear, but maybe you should research the subject more. The case for morality being evolutionary, and for specific parts of the brain being directly involved and related to what we call "morality" is exceptionally strong.

I've done a fair amount of research into the area, thanks. Some of the best research comes from Frans de Waal's comparative psych studies, but he would be the first to admit that his evidence is far from conclusive. I'm interested in what research you think is 'exceptionally strong' in this area though (however, if you're referencing someone like Pinker or Dawkins, then there's not much point linking it here).

Then you won't mind if I ask you to produce references for all the assertions you have made?

English is not my first language. If you think I am being mean, ask me. It could be just a wording problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-12-2011, 02:03 PM
RE: The science of morality
(13-12-2011 12:50 PM)sy2502 Wrote:  I will try to word my question as clearly as possible, but I am not very eloquent and English is not my first language, so please be patient with me and don't quibble about words, try to get the meaning of what I am saying. Also, I have not made up my mind about this subject but, for the purpose of the thread, I will play the devil's advocate, whether I agree with that position or not.

Most people agree on one thing: nature is amoral. When a lion gains a pride and the first thing he does is kill all the offspring of the previous male lion, we don't discuss the morality of the act, we just see it as it is, the expression of an evolutionary imperative. When locusts descend on a piece of land and turn it into devastation, we don't call the locusts immoral for the ecological consequences. We also don't question the morality of our walking upright, as our entire anatomy is evolved to be bipedal.

For a time we considered humans apart from the rest of nature: we were god's children, we had a soul, we had free will, therefore we couldn't be held to the same standards as the animal kingdom. Now we know humans are animals, and that we evolved just like any other animal, with the same exact evolutionary imperatives and selective pressure. We also understand that our soul or personality is in fact electro-chemical processes in the brain, the workings of a physical organ that evolved just like every other part of our body, due to selective pressure. Some scientists even question the very existence of "free will".

Having said all of the above, does morality actually make sense? I am talking in very logical and scientific terms.Is morality is a form of special pleading? If a lion eating the gazelle is neither moral nor immoral, why would my eating a cow be a moral issue? If an animal species that wipes out another it is neither moral nor immoral, why would humans doing the same be a moral issue? Does anybody have a good argument for why human morality is NOT a logical fallacy based on emotional arguments and special pleading?

Now, I am not saying all morality falls in that category. Notice that there are animal instincts, like self preservation, caring for the young, and forms of cooperation, that are evolutionary traits. Notice also that humans consider many of them moral issues. But why do we differentiate between the evolutionary instinct of animals and the moral imperatives of humans?


Silly ridiculous ideological materialistic approach that has almost nothing to do with the facts or with reality , concerning humans at least & free will as the foundation of morality ethics regarding man : ideological interpretative prescriptive speculative materialistic monistic ethics imposed to science , monism that goes the whole way back to Spinoza's ethics or monism in the sense :

There is neither good nor evil as such , no free will ....



What has that to do with science or with the material nature of science that is concerned only by material processes ?:

The immaterial nature of the human soul , free will, morality ethics ......are far beyond science's reach = metaphysical matters
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: