Posted on 02/01/2008 5:30:47 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A recent issue of the New York Times Magazine carried a long piece by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker called “The Moral Instinct.” Pinker's article is part of the Darwinian Cleanup Project. This project is an attempt to plug the holes in Darwinism which has a very hard time accounting for-- a) the origin of life, b) consciousness and c) morality.
Pinker begins with an interesting comparison between Mother Teresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug (the father of the Green Revolution in agriculture). Pinker argues that while Mother Teresa may have had the noblest intentions, Gates and Borlaug probably did more to help people than the saint of Calcutta. In other words, morality is not simply a matter of intention but also of what one actually does to help people. Excellent point, but what does it have to do with an evolutionary foundation for ethics? Not much.
For the past several decades, leading neo-Darwinists have labored hard to provide a Darwinian basis for morality. The basic idea here is that morality is a form of extended selfishness. The mother who leaps into the burning car to save her children is acting unselfishly from her point of view, but from her genes' point of view, the action is entirely self-interested. The mother is simply trying to ensure that her genes make it into the next generation. Some evolutionists like Robert Trivers extend this logic to explain why we treat even strangers decently and fairly. This is called "reciprocal altruism," which may be translated as "I'll be nice to you, so that you can be nice to me."
This entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. It confines itself to explaining altruism, and at best it explains "low altruism." But humans also engage in "high altruism" which may be defined as behavior that confers no reciprocal or genetic advantage. A man stands up to give his seat on the bus to an older woman. She is nothing to him, and he is certainly not thinking that there may be a future occasion when she will give him her seat. He does it because he's a nice guy. There's no Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior.
Consider the true story of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe, who was imprisoned in a German concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities. Each day the Nazis would choose one person from the group for execution. One of the first persons they selected was a man who pleaded for his life, saying he had a wife and children who were dependent on him and he needed to live in order to look after them. Just as the Nazis were about to drag him from the room, the priest stood up and said, "Take me in his place." The Nazis were baffled and refused, but the priest insisted. The man was equally uncomprehending, so the priest told him, "I don't have a family, I am old and won't be missed like you will." The Nazis finally agreed, and the priest went to his death. The man whose place he took survived the war and returned to his family.
Now what is the Darwinian explanation for Kolbe's behavior? It does not exist. Ernest Mayr, a leading evolutionary biologist, admits that "altruism toward strangers is behavior not supported by natural selection."
Richard Dawkins concedes that Darwinism cannot even explain why people donate blood, an action he puts down to "pure disinterested altruism." I enjoy reading Pinker, Trivers and the others, but I don't think that the Darwin Cleanup Crew is going to come up with a comprehensive account of morality. The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage--in other words, to the domain of self-interest--while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.
For Christians, morality is not merely a survival strategy; rather, morality refers to the laws of right and wrong which exist objectively or in nature. These laws are ultimately the prescription of God, who created the moral law just as He created the physical laws of nature. In the Christian view, morality is given by God but recognizable through moral reasoning and conscience; consequently, one does not have to be Christian or even religious to know the difference between right and wrong.
The Christian explanation for morality shares with the Darwinian view a skeptical or low view of human nature. Immanuel Kant put it very well when he wrote, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.” Consequently it is very difficult to live a moral life without God’s help. We appeal to God for grace or divine assistance to help us live better and more virtuous lives than we are capable of living on our own. Great sacrificial figures like Mother Teresa and Maximilian Kolbe have always recognized this, and attributed their actions to a divine force larger than themselves.
Darwinists do not believe free will exists, so they will never understand the basis for morality.
Good luck jokers...you don’t even know what the basis is for the spirit yet.
Cooperation is the name of the game. Look at the species we have co-opted into our sphere of influence and how much both we and they have gained from our alliance.
A man alone is nothing. A man with hunting hounds, a horse under him, and a falcon at his writs is the master of his environment.
A man alone is nothing. A man with a army of committed and obedient soldiers behind him can be the master of the world.
read later
Let me ask you.....
Which do you think would be more successful. A band of humans to whom Kolbe’s act was anathema, who all sought out any small advantage only for themselves and their kin; or a band of humans who had people of Kolbe’s moral caliber who were capable of great personal sacrifice and envisioned a higher ideal or principle than their own life and their own advantage?
The answer is obvious.
From an Evolutionary Point of view, how do we define what is higher ideal or principle ?
So I would say a higher ideal or principle would be any motivation that leads to altruistic behavior.
What was Kolbe’s ideal? The good of the tribe. He was old and would not be missed (he thought), while the man begging for his life was young and had dependents.
This ideal was motivated by his Christian faith and shows the greatness of the soul that God put into him, and the transcendent nature of our faith that extols God who sacrificed himself for man.
I’ve read most of Pinker’s books. He’s always interesting and informative.
John Donne, on the other hand, observes, "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
“Darwinist” seems to be a term used by creationists to include all of those scientists who disagree with them.
bump 4 later
Seeing as it's Friday evening, and I'm holding a tumbler of Oban single malt, I'm going to have to go with "Barley".
ping
You cannot get to an absolute moral value from a conditional statement.
I.e., you can’t say X is moral, because Y.
You’d then have to prove Y is moral, because..
and on forever.
Logic and science cannot “prove” absolute values. By definition.
... who said it?
Baloney. There is an obvious Darwinian rationale that can account for his behavior; by demonstrating that he is a "nice guy" to the older woman, he makes himself attractive to younger women who might mate with him.
Plato’s Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the 'avoidance of sin.'
There can be no morality without one singular source defining what it is.
It doesn't have to be defined. What needs to be defined is the path by which you find it. You either find it or you don't. Those of us that have found it know it, those that haven't can never understand if it takes a million years.
And your definition of a higher power is lacking. The "power" is not "higher", it is right here among us. The spirit knows no boundaries.
Socrates torpedoed that sophistry in Plato's Euthyphro thousands of years ago.
You cannot be pious to the gods if the gods all want different things.
Likewise, there can be no morality without one singular source defining what it is.
There is no such thing as “Gods”. God is a single source where all points of power meet as one. You are fishing around in a pond that you will never enter unless you are willing. Science will never define it because science is to narrow a scope in the infinite nature of things.
Exactly the same point Socrates was making.
God is a single source where all points of power meet as one.
Then "morality," which are mere idols of human invention, do not exist.
Morality is a deceptive replacement for the "avoidance of sin."
Morality is mans definition. Consider the source.
Exactly my point.
It is rooted entirely in a presupposition.
I don't think we get to chose if we are spiritual or not, it's inherent in man.
The line they draw between good and evil is just an elementary way of saying that some reject that spirit even exists and live their life accordingly and this is esentually not good for them or anyone else (evil).
But lets not confuse this sociology stuff with actual evolutionary Science based upon natural selection and mutation that is backed up by literally TONS of data from DNA comparisons and numerous experiments testing the strength of selective pressure.
The help Gates and Burlaug provided were the natural results of the market place, a market place dependent on human nature in both its physical and spiritual realms, while pursuing their own self-interest.
The simple reason is that the evolutionary project is necessarily confined to the domain of survival and reproductive advantage--in other words, to the domain of self-interest--while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.
There is a distinction between the physical and spiritual aspects of man but both are natural and inescapable. Therefore, there are physical self-interests and spiritual self-interest, sometimes in conflict due to insufficient understanding of our spiritual selves.
For Christians, morality is not merely a survival strategy;
For some it is. Many pledge allegiance to God in hopes of escaping the Grim Reaper. I am not talking about just hypocrites but many sincere and practicing Christians are mentally centered on the after life and "being good" is just paying those insurance premiums to avoid disaster. There is too little attention paid to the joy of living Christianity and too much paid to the escaped clause.
... rather, morality refers to the laws of right and wrong which exist objectively or in nature. These laws are ultimately the prescription of God, who created the moral law just as He created the physical laws of nature. In the Christian view, morality is given by God but recognizable through moral reasoning and conscience; consequently, one does not have to be Christian or even religious to know the difference between right and wrong.
And there you have it!
It is a fair point. But I think you are missing something.
We did not always live in the big seemingly anonymous society that we live in today. Current theory is that many of our traits date back to the Pleistocene era, during a time when humans lived in small groups of 200 people or so.
Thus, when a man performed an altruistic act for an older woman, it was likely to be observed by someone in the group, and these acts determined how he became known to his cohorts. Moreover, the older woman was not without a voice to share the experience with others, also influencing his standing.
As for whether evolution is science, all I can tell you is that I've studied science for a very long time--long enough to know science when I see it. Evolutionary theory is science.
In these kind of discussions, notice that evolutionists only need to provide some vaguely plausible explanation, while anyone who disputes purely naturalistic evolution is required to prove their position with absolute certainty.
So, the fireman who sacrifices his own life to save a child was only trying to propagate the genes of the child. Yeah, right. And how do we know that? It’s called a wild-ass, desperate guess. But it is enough to stave off the anti-evolutionists — because they can’t *prove* it’s wrong — and that’s all that matters.
This focus on selfishness sounds like something picked up from Liberal theories of self-interest, rather than a category of proper scientific analysis.
Rico...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.