morality within evolution

[alexa]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

And Nietzsche's conclusion about morality, which could be just as easily found in the writings of Jung and Campbell:

Shakespeare said that art is a mirror held up to nature. And that’s what it is. The nature is your nature, and all of these wonderful poetic images of mythology are referring to something in you. When your mind is simply trapped by the image out there so that you never make the reference to yourself, you have misread the image.

The inner world is the world of your requirements and your energies and your structure and your possibilities that meets the outer world. And the outer world is the field of your incarnation. That’s where you are. You’ve got to keep both going. As Novalis said, "The seat of the soul is there where the inner and outer worlds meet."

You spoke like a true lawyer, Abogado !
This is a "heavy artillery" , difficult to compete with.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Alexa and Abogado!

Awesome posts!

My regret is that I haven't time just now to look deeper into them, but I will, soon.

Many, many thanks! You have given me a lot to consider.

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

Well, it was sad to end my vacation trip but it brightened my day to see that this thread is still alive and kickin'. No way will I have time to catch up completely, but I hope to skim through and catch some of the nuggets posted.

Cheers,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

We have a big storm coming, so responding tonight will likely not be possible.

Good to hear that you survived Charlie intact. Weather certainly can make life interesting, in that Chinese curse sort of way.

So unless there is mass delusion that affects (effectively) all humans since the dawn of civilization, there is a spiritual component to morality that evolution cannot dare to properly address. Even in drawing upon the concept of memes (Vaj will understand), memes readily explain the subjective components of morality, but do not adequately address the universal components.

I see that after this quoted post there is further discussion of the universality of morality. If one means universal as unchanging since the dawn of mankind, the only thing I can think of is "love thy neighbor." I think that this basis of morality was born with humanity and perhaps is more important and more distinguishing than any human trait ever found in the fossil record. This law certainly was not acted upon as we strive to in this day. Perhaps at first the only ones who could qualify as "neighbor" would be an extended family or clan. Now we can see the whole world as our neighbor and not only as a potential enemy. But of course this is an ideal. Maybe we don't do much better than our earliest ancestors. I think the important new meme is "love thy enemy." I think this is the one meant to take us to our next higher level of "evolution." But it took 6 millions years to work on just the first one.

Our physical evolution, including the evolution of the brain, is based upon the selfish gene and our behavioral , including moral, evolution is based upon the selfish meme, the question still is, what is the ultimate source of the gene and the meme?

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Fear?

I see there is a bit more about fear and utility below, which I hope to read more carefully.

In short, yes.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

You can read the two referenced chapters from Karamazov here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...chapter35.htmland here: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au...chapter36.html

Enjoy.

Thank you for the links. Outstanding book! I read this just last year (curiously, just before I made a major shift in my religion). I look forward to using the links to refresh on these chapters.

[alexa]

Welcome back lunamoth,

Don't worry, you'll have the time to catch up with.

Abogado has managed to mark a checkmate with Nietzsche, Jung, Campbell and Shakespeare.

I'm sure, Juan will be back soon to say : yes, but (...) even for them.

So, for the moment, I'm torturing my fingers not to answer to quickly.

See you soon,

Alexa

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

But could it also be that they simply do not feel bound by a "moral" obligation? Certainly you can find limitless examples of men of power who acted in compelete disregard of the principles you would associate with "evidence of a universal morality." And many of these would be men of remarkable education and ability. To judge them abnormal or immoral is to argue in a circle. (BTW, this thread may be starting to converge with Brian's new thread about whether Ethics are for the "lower classes." Interesting.)

I would have to look at specific examples, and even then there may not be enough information available to really check it out, but I would be inclined to think that even these individuals would exercise a form of morality, at least within their circle. It might be a tighter circle than most, say immediate family, children, or a spouse/lover, whereas the "average" person feels obligated for a larger group.

I recently watched (again) the movie Shindler's List. I had missed the beginning before. I didn't realize he was, by some people's standards, a person of "questionable" morality, yet he managed to save the lives of several hundred people, a very moral thing to do.

You have to conclude that this conduct is "abnormal" because that coincides with the moral template by which you judge the universe.

I can grant you this. Of course, I haven't seen any other specific model to gauge with.

But to them, it may seem perfectly rational to not acknowledge any moral obligation - only expediency and purpose.

Is this not the essence of Mill's utilitarianism?

But if there is no universal morality - there is nothing "wrong" with being a "sociopath." Hence, the challenge Ivan Karamazov faces in "Rebellion" often paraphrased as "without God, everything is permissible."

This is often used as argument to suggest that Atheists cannot ultimately be moral, or perhaps better said, cannot be moral without some other overriding influence, such as the weight and opinion of society.

I would think, in the terms of this discussion, that "sociopath" is a relative term. A sociopath within the group is detrimental to the survival of that group (which would be immoral). A sociopath directed towards "others" outside of the group may be a patriot or hero (which would be moral, and potentially very moral, at least to the group "he" represents).

That it's "utility." What about its moral "propriety?"

Ah, whether or not behavioral psychology is moral? Of course, memes are very similar to behavioral psychology, in that both are fed by emotions. Negative emotions seem to be the best to suit the purpose. Of course, this observation supports what you are saying, if one considers that memes are social constructs. Behavioral psychology simply is, the animal nature within humans exploited for business purposes.

Suggesting a need to change would be contrary to the whole idea of moving beyond "morality" in the first place, wouldn't it?

I'm not certain I am asking for a change, per se. I was looking to figure out what you had been alluding to. Since I am at a point right now of trying to see if a universal morality exists, moving beyond it would be a little premature I think.

FWIW, the paper I turned in for my ethics class presented morality with a question mark. Thank you. I don't know how it will be received, but I think I am beginniing to look at the puzzle from a different vantage.

You'd be right back to precepts of "good" and "evil" supported by reasons. Only it would be different precepts and different reasons -- but the same problem -- it places your ends at the center of the Universe.

OK, I am not sure I fully understand. For the sake of discussion, perhaps the terms "good" and "bad" should be replaced, as I saw in one of the quotes I cited, with the terms "ought" and "ought not." We ought to treat the members of our group with a distinction for the purpose of survival. For discussion, if universal morality exists, then it is not "my" ends at the center of the universe, but the universal morality, presuming "my" ends are in accord with that universal morality. I don't make that presumption, as a matter of course, which is the reason for this thread in the first place.

Paraphrasing however, he says that it is a jaded view of life (a "suspicion against life" as it is often translated) driven by reason and the false sense of knowledge about "good" and "evil" or that the ideal world of reason is the "true" world, that compels us to despise ourselves, our life, our Universe and to demand meaning - not where there is no "meaning" (nihilism) but where no "meaning" is actually necessary.

I am not fully sure I follow, but I'll try. Am I to presume here that logic supplants morality? I can see logic supplanting formal moral constructs, religion, but I do not see where logic would supplant moral "ought and ought not." I would further add that not all reasoning is logical. I would venture to say that some people, perhaps a majority most of the time, reason with emotion, instinct or reaction. I would think that it is within these types of reasoning that people would seek meaning where none exists. Which returns us to behavioral psych and memes.

I don't think I've argued that humans are inclined away from morality. I think I am saying that they are amoral but create morality to satisfy a psychology created by fear and utility.

OK, my mistake. Again, I see formal moral constructs as fulfilling these, and even being used to manipulate the masses by fear and utility. But religion is not morality. Religion pretends to some form of morality, but it is not the morality itself. Religion teaches the "oughts and ought nots," but the individual is the one who "feels" and interprets the meanings.

The problem is, I read those myths of the earliest Shamans in the great wisdom traditions and I see a call to step beyond the ego, beyond judgment and morality, to experience a oneness beyond the Self and its judgments - to override "reason" and tap back into the joy of life. I don't see them as a reinforcement of the meaning and value of moral judgment. That was the doorway to love and spirit for me. And once I started through that doorway, I saw that the law was the door - not the doorway. I hate to be so cryptic, but language is a poor vehicle for conveying experience.

I do like this description, law as the door, not the doorway. I would be very interested in hearing of your experience.

I will add one little caveat though, I do not see law as morality. Law is formalized morality, or was at one time. Yes, law can be an obstacle. If universal morality exists, it is not law. It transcends law, and is universal to all (whether or not all apply it). I guess the nearest I can describe in this sense would be "a conscience." The little Jiminy Cricket that sits on your shoulder. Or the little angel that whispers in your ear (while the little devil does the same on the other side). Figurative, but the best I can do right now.

Is that the criteria? Also, I'm not sure that it has be be "pessimistic" or "optimistic." If you find "truth" and joy what difference does the label make?

I can accept this on a subjective, relative level, from the outside in. "Pessimistic, optimistic, truth and joy" are individual interpretations. I suppose, hypothetically, a person could seem outwardly pessimistic and be internally optimistic, or at least joy in being pessimistic, but I would think such a person to be against the physiological norm. People tend to radiate outwardly their internal psyche. An optimistic person will radiate joy and happiness, whereas a pessimistic person tends not to.

While I don't disagree, I am at the point of seriously questioning it. I am a lion becoming a child (my dragon is dead). But I am not yet a child.

This is intriguing to me, I do not understand.

There is consensus. But is that really circumstantial evidence of existence?

I can grant you this. My point was that an overwhelming number of people ascribe to the concept, which made me wonder if there was something I missed.

That's quite similar to the very problem that led me through the doorway! Love and spirit are intertwined, but the law subverts love and disconnects spirit by elevating ego. And yes, once you use language, it is the ordinary human way of being.

Absolutely! LAW subverts love, but law is not morality. Paul also, speaking of love, talked of "faith, hope and charity, these three," and "the greatest of these is charity." Charity, in this sense, is love. At the same time it is "ethical action", or in a word, morality.



I had not heard the saying from the Tao te Ching before, thanks. I am inclined to agree.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Happy to see you back! I trust your vacation was enjoyable.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Good to hear that you survived Charlie intact. Weather certainly can make life interesting, in that Chinese curse sort of way.

Yes, well, we were very fortunate. I did take a little time to "wash my bowl," I passed the collection plate around for the Red Cross. It was the only thing I could think of to do given my circumstances. I hope I did the correct thing, in my heart I know I meant well. A portion was to see if there might be a lesson to apply here, but I have come away empty on that.

If one means universal as unchanging since the dawn of mankind, the only thing I can think of is "love thy neighbor." I think that this basis of morality was born with humanity and perhaps is more important and more distinguishing than any human trait ever found in the fossil record.

I agree, the historical distinction being in just who comprised a "neighbor."

This law certainly was not acted upon as we strive to in this day.

Is it adequate and appropriate to call such "law?"

Perhaps at first the only ones who could qualify as "neighbor" would be an extended family or clan. Now we can see the whole world as our neighbor and not only as a potential enemy. But of course this is an ideal.

I agree, it is an ideal to strive for. But is it innate, or is it learned (invented) behavior?

Maybe we don't do much better than our earliest ancestors. I think the important new meme is "love thy enemy." I think this is the one meant to take us to our next higher level of "evolution." But it took 6 millions years to work on just the first one.

Again, it might be something worth striving for, ideally, from our perspective towards "peace and harmony among all humanity," but is it something from outside of us that guides us, or is it something from within. Ah, words fail here. Is it "natural" to love our enemies, or is this simply a moral construct for modern society?

Our physical evolution, including the evolution of the brain, is based upon the selfish gene and our behavioral , including moral, evolution is based upon the selfish meme, the question still is, what is the ultimate source of the gene and the meme?

BINGO! In which direction are we being led. Which way is up? Which way does the flow go? Are we, as individuals, going with the current, or struggling against it?

What roles do morality, love and spirit have in our journeys?

I'll get to the others later. G'nite!

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Thank you for the links. Outstanding book! I read this just last year (curiously, just before I made a major shift in my religion). I look forward to using the links to refresh on these chapters.

I read it in 1991 and it marked a huge shift in my worldview as well (the beginning of one, anyway). It was a high water mark in my education for sure.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

And to you as well. This is going to be a long post I fear. It seems like we've touched on just about every major question in this exchange.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I would have to look at specific examples, and even then there may not be enough information available to really check it out, but I would be inclined to think that even these individuals would exercise a form of morality, at least within their circle. It might be a tighter circle than most, say immediate family, children, or a spouse/lover, whereas the "average" person feels obligated for a larger group.

But doesn't it just become relativism rather than a "universal" morality? Is it a morality at all? Biology could explain the desire to further the interests of immediate family, children and spouse without reference to any morality.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I recently watched (again) the movie Shindler's List. I had missed the beginning before. I didn't realize he was, by some people's standards, a person of "questionable" morality, yet he managed to save the lives of several hundred people, a very moral thing to do.

And why did he do it? Because he felt guilty for what he had done? Perhaps. But the way I perceived the story was that he had a moment of "truth" - en epiphany - in which he connected himself with others. I suspected a few posts back that you and I would discover that we were talking about the same thing but using two different words. I am pretty sure that's the case now. I'll explain what I mean below.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Is this not the essence of Mill's utilitarianism?

It certainly is. It's also the essence of Machiavelli. But again, is this "morality." It certainly doesn't seem to have the feel of a "universal" morality like the golden rule or Kant's categorical imperative.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

This is often used as argument to suggest that Atheists cannot ultimately be moral, or perhaps better said, cannot be moral without some other overriding influence, such as the weight and opinion of society.

Only if you discount the power of aesthetics.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I would think, in the terms of this discussion, that "sociopath" is a relative term. A sociopath within the group is detrimental to the survival of that group (which would be immoral). A sociopath directed towards "others" outside of the group may be a patriot or hero (which would be moral, and potentially very moral, at least to the group "he" represents).

True. And incredibly scary.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I'm not certain I am asking for a change, per se. I was looking to figure out what you had been alluding to. Since I am at a point right now of trying to see if a universal morality exists, moving beyond it would be a little premature I think.

I wasn't suggesting that you were asking for a change, but responding to a statement you made implying that I was advocating some change. Which I am not.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

FWIW, the paper I turned in for my ethics class presented morality with a question mark. Thank you. I don't know how it will be received, but I think I am beginniing to look at the puzzle from a different vantage.

As am I. Thank you.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, I am not sure I fully understand. For the sake of discussion, perhaps the terms "good" and "bad" should be replaced, as I saw in one of the quotes I cited, with the terms "ought" and "ought not." We ought to treat the members of our group with a distinction for the purpose of survival. For discussion, if universal morality exists, then it is not "my" ends at the center of the universe, but the universal morality, presuming "my" ends are in accord with that universal morality. I don't make that presumption, as a matter of course, which is the reason for this thread in the first place.

Is survival the "good"?

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I am not fully sure I follow, but I'll try. Am I to presume here that logic supplants morality?

No. Just the opposite. Logic drives morality. But it depends on langauge, which is ultimately empty of truth. So too is a logic of morality.

I'll respond to the rest later.

Have an excellent evening.

[lunamoth]

I hope you don't mind me responding to your post to Juantoo. Some interesting points here.

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

I should have put a line break in there. Those were two different questions. First, I propose - questioningly - whether the motive for subjugating oneself to a moral code is really simply motivated by fear. That could be a fear of reprisal or consequences in the here and now and it could be a fear created by the perception of truth in a judgment in the afterlife (or subsequent lives, etc.). Do you perceive that those with less to fear are more likely to "violate" what you perceive as "uiversal morals?"

Very interesting idea--really never occured to me except as it applies to criminal sociopaths. But, I don't really know if they have no fear or somehow their fear-response wiring is crossed so that they feel thrill or satisfaction where others might feel fear. But, it did make me think of lepers. If I am correctly informed, lepers can't feel pain and so end up with all kinds of damage on their bodies that non-lepers are able to avoid or nurse. Pain seems bad, but really it is very important defense mechanism. Fear seems bad, but we know it is important for mounting the fight or flight adreneline response. Maybe it also has important cultural benefits. The lack of fear of social, non-immediate consequences maybe needs a different name than the fear of seeing a tiger nearby.

I'd like to explore this further but maybe it belongs in Brian's new thread (that I haven't visited yet) about ethics and class.

The second question is "does everyone cling to the trappings of a universal morality?" It seems that many do not. It also seems that one would be hard pressed to find words to express or describe a universal morality.

I don't think 100% of the people must cling to something to make it universal. Even though a blind person can't see it, the color red is still found in all rainbows.

It does as a concept, certainly. The question is - does it exist aside from the concept? If so, what is the mode of its existence? What is the description of its attributes? How do we know of its existence or its attributes? And what is its source? That's why I asked about "Karamazov." In Book V, Chapters 4 and 5, Dostoyevsky's Ivan Karamozov utters some of the most brilliant prose I've ever read on the subject of morality.

Thank you for this very challenging discussion. I am enjoying it greatly.

About the concept of a universal law. If you mean by concept that it is an ideal, then that also implies that there are many shades of grey between achieving this ideal and utterly failing at it. However, the ideal exists always and the real exists sporadically, sometimes only for seconds at a time.

I (quite unoriginally ) said above that "love thy neighbor" strikes me as a universal moral law. A civilization or culture is defined by having law--things that you do and things that you don't do that separate you from animals and others that don't do as you do (and hey! see now I am making your point about how law separates us from each other). But is there any civilization that does not acknowledge this law of love? Is there any culture that bases its morality on treating each other indifferently, or abusively? I guess this is a rhetorical question because I believe the answer is no.

We have a universal law, that of love, that unites us. You can't have even a family, much less a village or state, without this law.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by alexa

I agree a Christian theism offers an ontological ground for morality. Still, Christianity is only one among other religions of the world

In the Christian religion the 10 commandements are laws for their beilivers. If we accept the equation : moral = law, even an atheist who believes in law (judiciary system) can be a moral person

Hi Alexa, and thank you for the welcome back. My vacation was relaxing and too short.

Excellent points above. I've referred a couple of times now to the "love thy neighbor" law due to my Christian/Baha'i bias, but I think that this law of love is universal to all religions. Now, if you look at the ten commandments, half of them are really just a non-comprehensive breakdown of this law of love thy neighbor as yourself: you wouldn't murder yourself, you wouldn't steal from yourself. The other half are about loving God. How do we love God? We obey His law. What is His law? Love your neighbor, and yourself (give your slaves/employees and yourself a day off out of every seven, act with nobility and sanctity, "Be Holy because I Am Holy").

If we keep going like this we are not going to be able to avoid rehashing the atheist/agnostic/theist discussion, I am afraid!

[alexa]

But is there any civilization that does not acknowledge this law of love? Is there any culture that bases its morality on treating each other indifferently, or abusively? I guess this is a rhetorical question because I believe the answer is no.

We have a universal law, that of love, that unites us. You can't have even a family, much less a village or state, without this law.

I'm afraid I have to disagree on this, lunamoth. I still cannot believe and accept how women are considered as useless or as properties for a man due to a wrong interpretation and the moralilty in some religions. If a father burnes his own daughter only because she doesn't want to marry an old man, or a woman is delapidated just because she took the liberty to look to another guy, than yes I consider this as abusive.

We have another universal law, even I don't like it, which is hate, that devides us.

As Juan said in another post, it depends what law we are talking about.

Nowadays, there are too many religions and cults and sects and they keep speading out to aloud us to find the unity in our morality. The first step fo an universal moral is, in my humble opinion, to know about the existance of the others, different from your religion or your belifs. Second : do the effort to learn about the others and not to tell yourself, I'm right and the other is wrong, so why should I care. Third : learn to live and let the others live, too. For the following steps, only the future can tell us which direction is the best.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

Juan:

Here's an interesting excerpt from one of Nietzsche's letters from "Will to Power" that touches upon the idea of universal morality projected into nature.

I have not read or studied Nietzsche, or any other philosophy for that matter, to any significant extent, so forgive the naivety in my thoughts about this passage.

Toward the end it concludes that through solely the powers of reason we end up with nihilism, but this overlooks a couple of things. First, the observable evidence that our cultures, traditions and beliefs serve a purpose, they fulfill individual need and make civilizations run smoother. So, we have some need other than what is logical/physical/measurable/describable. Second, it limits the universe to what our mind can understand. What is incorrect, or ignorant, about using a myth to describe the indescribable, to understand the (real but) unknowable? And, let me add that by myth I do not necessarily mean something that did not historically happen. I guess I don't agree that we need to be trapped by reason. Religion at its best is the way to survive the rough waters that lie beyond reason.