Re: Here ya go, OSLI!
Ardsgaine said:
Sounds like you're in pretty much the same boat as Kant.
In many ways, yes.
If we kick something, and feel it, then are justified in believing that it is real.
You have two realities, then. The real reality, and the perceived reality. Like Popper, you're saying that the perceived reality is good enough.
Yes, I believe that there must necessarily be "two realities," and the perceive reality
must be good enough, because that is all we have access to. It's not a matter of choice.
Popper doesn't solve Hume's problem of induction, though, he just says, "I'll think about that tomorrow."
Yes, and like Popper, I also have decided to "think about that tomorrow." (Actually, I've done quite a bit of thinking about that, and I think Popper might have been closer to the solution than most people give him credit for. After some reading though, I've decided not to take a firm stance on this issue yet... more study required.
).
That is a much trickier question. I believe that the idea of "what is good for the species" is a moving target... changing as we evolve and our culture evolve.
So in what appreciable way has our species changed in the past 10,000 years of recorded history? I'm speaking here of the fundamental nature of man, not his state of knowledge.
Ah, but you just declared the most important part of my statement (our
culture) off-limits.
Our culture is a vital part of what makes us unique as a species. It isn't all genetics anymore... hasn't been for thousands of years.
What's good for man depends on his nature qua man, irrespective of his state of knowledge. His state of knowledge may determine what he thinks is good, but it doesn't affect what is, in fact, good.
Well, to offer a simplistic example for something that represents the "moving target" that I am speaking of: thousands of years ago mass reproduction was favorable. Mortality rates were high, population numbers were low, and the more offspring the merrier (better chance for survival of the genes of the family, and the species). Today, we are quickly heading for a state where equilibrium is more desireable, and unrelentless reproduction is harmful. Our genes haven't changed... but our environment has. Genes aren't the only things that evolve, and in the case of modern humans, I think they are by far the less important of the things which can.
I assume you're speaking of things like prohibitions against eating pork. What has changed is the context of human knowledge.
Which is precisely my point. Attempting to define "good" and "evil" in terms mearly of hard-coded genetics at the individual level (I'm not really sure if that's what you are attempting to do, or what you viewpoint is, but since you seem to take exception to my basis of "good" and "evil" in cultural terms I'm left with little alternative) will ultimately be futile. On the most basic level, it isn't even the survival of the individual which drives behavior, but rather the survival of our genes. We are but mere vehicles carrying them around, doing their bidding.
Of course, I believe there is much more above that level, and stopping at the level of the individual isn't reasonable to me--the level of the society seems the appropriate place to discuss morals.
That principle applies in any given context. An absolute prohibition against pork is like someone calculating the acceleration of gravity on Earth, and then claiming that it is the same for every planet in the galaxy.
I'm not sure what point this is making. It's a part of the "moving target" idea: as knowledge increases or changes, there will be things that we find were once dangerous and no longer are.
Let me pose a rhetorical question to help answer yours: If the technology was developed at some time in the distant future to easily repair and resurrect anyone killed by accidental causes, would "murder" be considered as "evil" of a crime as it is today? Should it be?
Murder is murder. If the doctors save the person's life, then he wasn't murdered.
I guess I would have to agree. My example was a poor one: I was speaking more of the action, you were adressing the result, and after thought I think that "murder" would probably be more properly defined by the result instead of the action. My point is that, if it was "guaranteed" that shooting somone would simply cause a temporary inconvenience, then shootings would probably downgraded to the same level as ordinary assault and battery.
But yes, grinding someone up, incinerating them, and spreading out their ashes would still be pretty evil.
We have evolved the capacity to reason, and I believe that once our cultural evolution catches up to our biological evolution, we will find a solution.
There's nothing inevitable about cultural evolution, though. Man has free will, and has to choose the good rather than the evil. Looking back on the twentieth century, I see a cultural "de-evolution" of man. Science has progressed, but moral reasoning has degenerated.
I don't agree. Murder is taken much more seriously now (in most areas of the world at least) than it was several hundred years ago. It was once acceptable repayment for many different offenses on a personal level, and that is no longer the case. We are more enlightened now about a great variety of things, and if our morals seem "degenerated" it is simply because the progression of science has shown how so many previous morals are frivolous and serve no real purpose in the present.
That is, after all, why humans developed the capacity to reason to begin with -- it is more efficient to cooperate.
There are all sorts of animals that cooperate with each other without reasoning. It seems a stretch to say that we evolved in that direction for that purpose. It's more reasonable to say that individual members of the species who developed the capacity for rational thought were more capable of adapting to circumstances and developing strategies for survival, therefore, they were the ones who passed on their genetics, increasing the intelligence of humanity.
I think I worded my statement poorly. Of course the ability to cooperate isn't the only factor in the evolution of our ability to reason. Further, my wording made a common mistake in order: there is never any "reason" behind evolution, in so much as a desired goal is concerned. There are simply variations that are selected for in the current environment, and the resulting traits are just that--results.
Our intelligence does have many advantages, but ultimately the establishment of culture is the most beneficial. It gives us the ability to cooperate on a scale larger than that of packs, and it gives us a framework in which to make "value judgements" that include other individuals as variables.
It is my opinion that human evolution is firmly in the domain now of culture. There is very little environmental pressure for us to evolve further genetically (pressure is usually a result of an inhospitable environment, and doesn't have as great ov an effect on populations that well adapted and flouishing).
Most of our genes are shared with mice and the like, so much of our biology is still centered on self-preservation.
?( You mean there's a type of biology that doesn't require self-preservation?
There are many levels of biology. A mother sacrificing herself for her offspring is not uncommon in the animal world.
Looking at the greater picture, I would say the answer to your question is a resounding "yes." Self-preservation need not be the most effective way of ensuring species-preservation. Intelligence, reason, and culture make that possible. Why else would natural selection have permited the occurence of culture to survive?
And that is the true answer to the question: culture provides the rational for choosing the species over the individual.
I don't see it. I don't see the role that culture plays in this question, and I don't see a real conflict between the interests of the individual and the interests of the species. Every attempt to identify the good in terms of what is good for the group is just a means of forcing some individuals to sacrifice themselves for other individuals. If the good is defined in terms of what is good for the individual, then it is a good that will work for every individual. It is a good that will allow every individual to live and achieve his own happiness.
A difference of opinion I guess. If you are hellbent on defining "good" and "evil" at the level of the individual, then you have to explain why the levels above and below the individual aren't equally important. Personally, I find it much more satisfying to take the highest level as the proper one for moral considerations. Since I don't believe in the metaphysical level, the cultural one is the next best alternative.
When defining morals on an individual basis, you have to explain why culture was ever allowed to evolve. Culture promotes population control, individual behavior (self-preservation) will promote multiple offspring. How do you reconcile the difference, especially when considering that there
is a culture in place (this isn't hypothetical... one
has evolved), and there
is a shift towards population control and equilibrium?
What purpose does culture serve, if not to give a basis for a unified moral structure? The free spread of scientific knowledge doesn't directly benefit the individual: hording that information to provide an advantage would be more in line with acting on the individual level. The roles of "good" and "evil" would be nearly reversed (IMO), but the behavior of scientists would indicate that they are clearly operating in the best interests of the group.
Also, I don't understand why acting for the good of the group is "sacrificing" oneself. In many circumstances, the end result of cooperation on this level is beneficial for everyone in the group. I am reminded of the prisoner's dilemma. No, we don't always hold out in favor of the group, but we don't always act selfishly either.
