'Can Science answer Moral questions

[Nusc]

Sam Harris' interview about his TED talk (His TED talk is in the second link):



Criticism by Sean Carroll:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...e-moral-equivalent-of-the-parallel-postulate/

Harris' rebhuttal:

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

[religious issue deleted]

 

[russ_watters]

Issues with specific religous beliefs are not acceptable for discussion here and aren't relevant to the issue anyway. That part of the OP has therefore been deleted.

For the general issue itself, I agree with Harris completely. Regarding the criticism by Carroll:

Let’s grant the factual nature of the claim that primates are exposed to a greater range of happiness and suffering than insects or rocks. So what? That doesn’t mean we should care about their suffering or happiness; it doesn’t imply anything at all about morality, how we ought to feel, or how to draw the line between right and wrong.

Yeah, actually it does. It means minimization of suffering (and therefore maximization of development) is an important component to morality.

But what if I believe that the highest moral good is to be found in the autonomy of the individual, while you believe that the highest good is to maximize the utility of some societal group? What are the data we can point to in order to adjudicate this disagreement? We might use empirical means to measure whether one preference or the other leads to systems that give people more successful lives on some particular scale — but that’s presuming the answer, not deriving it. Who decides what is a successful life? It’s ultimately a personal choice, not an objective truth to be found simply by looking closely at the world. How are we to balance individual rights against the collective good? You can do all the experiments you like and never find an answer to that question.

There are two problems with this:
1. The two objectives at the beginning of the quote are assumed by socialists/communists to be mutually exclusive, but in reality, they are not. But even that is a non sequitur. Ultimately, neither zeroes-in on the real goal of the advancement of civilization: higher standards of living. This is nearly universally accepted. The point being, whichever worldview results in the higher standard of living must be the "best". Ironically, he describes exactly the method by which you would measure/prove this. Even more ironic, he invokes "personal choice" as a wildcard, when in fact it is only compatible with one of the possible methods!
2. #1 is important for figuring out how to get where we want to go, but ultimately it is itself a non sequitur on the initial question because scientific theories don't have goals, they only seek to explain what IS and how what IS works. It's a bit like trying to attach a goal to evolution: evolution has no goal, it just goes where the environment drives it. So too with morality. Morality evolves to take human development where it wants to go. If humans are interested in collective good, morality will evolve in a way that maximizes collective good. If humans are interested in individual rights and everything else be damned, morality will evolve to achieve that. That morality doesn't make the choice for us is not a flaw in morality - it's not the purpose of morality.

[edit: More...] Evolving a system where individual rights are paramount is actually not hard: it is Hobbes' "state of nature" and is much easier than evolving a collective good. The goal of policial theory since Hobbes has therefore been to maximize collective good while maintaining as much of individual rights as possible. The need for this isn't unique to humans - it can be seen all over the animal kingdom that evolution of successful (as in - simply surviving and thriving) animal species in a lot of/most cases requires social structures that adequately deal with the issue of balancing individual rights with collective good.

 

[Nusc]

Issues with specific religous beliefs are not acceptable for discussion here and aren't relevant to the issue anyway. That part of the OP has therefore been deleted.

For the general issue itself, I agree with Harris completely. Regarding the criticism by Carroll: Yeah, actually it does. It means minimization of suffering (and therefore maximization of development) is an important component to morality. There are two problems with this:
1. The two objectives at the beginning of the quote are assumed by socialists/communists to be mutually exclusive, but in reality, they are not. But even that is a non sequitur. Ultimately, neither zeroes-in on the real goal of the advancement of civilization: higher standards of living. This is nearly universally accepted. The point being, whichever worldview results in the higher standard of living must be the "best". Ironically, he describes exactly the method by which you would measure/prove this. Even more ironic, he invokes "personal choice" as a wildcard, when in fact it is only compatible with one of the possible goals!
2. #1 is important for figuring out how to get where we want to go, but ultimately it is a non sequitur on the initial question because scientific theories don't have goals, they only seek to explain what IS and how what IS works. It's a bit like trying to attach a goal to evolution: evolution has no goal, it just goes where the environment drives it. So too with morality. Morality evolves to take human development where it wants to go. If humans are interested in collective good, morality will evolve in a way that maximizes collective good. If humans are interested in individual rights and everything else be damned, morality will evolve to achieve that. That morality doesn't make the choice for us is not a flaw in morality - it's not the purpose of morality.

Nice.

"The point being, whichever worldview results in the higher standard of living must be the "best"." Is this not related to Spinoza's ethics?

Too bad for the specific reference, that was the whole point of the thread.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ultimately, neither zeroes-in on the real goal of the advancement of civilization: higher standards of living. This is nearly universally accepted. The point being, whichever worldview results in the higher standard of living must be the "best".

This is the primary issue with Harris' whole argument. That he cites examples where most people would agree ethically and claims this makes the presumption of ethical righteousness objective. He liberally utilizes the appeal to authority and appeal to emotion through out.
But what is considered a "higher standard of living"? Obviously many people have differing opinions on this. Many people believe that we can only establish a higher standard of living by not eating animals. Many people believe that we can only establish a higher standard of living by renouncing technology. I am sure we could come up with several differing opinions on this and based on their own goals for a higher standard of living we can come up with ways in which to achieve that higher standard. But this does not point the way to "the best". Even is a consensus of goals can be established it in no way detracts from the fact that it is a subjective consensus.

 

[russ_watters]

Nusc, I don't see your point. Could you explain it in more detail please.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Sam Harris' interview about his TED talk

I listened to the first sentence and turned the rest of it off. 100% of the statistic that he stated was pulled out of his ass. Why am I listening to a lightweight on a heavy subject?

 

[Nusc]

Nusc, I don't see your point. Could you explain it in more detail please.

Don't worry about it. I'll find out elsewhere.

 

[Nusc]

This is the primary issue with Harris' whole argument. That he cites examples where most people would agree ethically and claims this makes the presumption of ethical righteousness objective. He liberally utilizes the appeal to authority and appeal to emotion through out.
But what is considered a "higher standard of living"? Obviously many people have differing opinions on this. Many people believe that we can only establish a higher standard of living by not eating animals. Many people believe that we can only establish a higher standard of living by renouncing technology. I am sure we could come up with several differing opinions on this and based on their own goals for a higher standard of living we can come up with ways in which to achieve that higher standard. But this does not point the way to "the best". Even is a consensus of goals can be established it in no way detracts from the fact that it is a subjective consensus.

How is this a problem? The purpose of Harris' talk was addressing 'How Science can answer moral questions"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I listened to the first sentence and turned the rest of it off. 100% of the statistic that he stated was pulled out of his ass. Why am I listening to a lightweight on a heavy subject?

I grudgingly listened. When I started reading his response to criticism though I could no longer muster the patience.

Skimming I found this bit rather poor form for argument...

Moral relativism is clearly an attempt to pay intellectual reparations for the crimes of western colonialism, ethnocentrism, and racism. This is, I think, the only charitable thing to be said about it.

 

[russ_watters]

But what is considered a "higher standard of living"? Obviously many people have differing opinions on this.

I disagree. The key components of a higher standard of living are again, nearly universally accepted: lifespan, freedom and comfort. Since the difference between the "haves" and "have nots" in the world today and throughout history is so stark, it is easy to pin-down the differences that make the "haves" be "haves". Life expectancy is an objective measure, but the components of development that make it happen: reliable shelter, running water, refrigeration, sanitation, inocculation... Though these alone won't put someone above the povety line in a western country, they (off the top of my head...there are probably more...) are the essentials of what separates modern man from the ancients. Because of the nature of humans, these things are only reliably achievable with a certain basic ethics/morality/politics.

Many people believe that we can only establish a higher standard of living by not eating animals.

That's rediculous - or at best, just completely without basis. We've gotten where we are now with an ethics that includes eating animals.

Many people believe that we can only establish a higher standard of living by renouncing technology. I am sure we could come up with several differing opinions on this and based on their own goals for a higher standard of living we can come up with ways in which to achieve that higher standard.

Well that would need to be explained more before it could be accepted as reasonable. Most of the components of "standard of living" require technology to exist. What would this standard of living that you are referring to look like?

But this does not point the way to "the best". Even is a consensus of goals can be established it in no way detracts from the fact that it is a subjective consensus.

Well here's another news flash: evolution is a consensus goal. Every few weeks we get people in the biology forum asking where evolution is going, what the next step is, what could make humans objectively "better", etc. Just like with biological evolution, these questions are all non sequiturs as related to ethics. Evolution doesn't have a set goal of its own and neither does ethics. Evolution seeks to cause organisms to thrive and spread: has our ethics not helped enable humans to thrive and spread throughout the globe? Most of the nuts and bolts such as whether humans evolve to enjoy Brittney Spears or Dvorak (which people currently spend a rediculous amount of useless effort debating) are irrelevant to the issue of what constitutes "development". Whichever is the most successful at providing a society that meets the generic goals of making humans survive and thrive is "better".

The problem is that most people don't accept that that way of looking at ethics can result in the ethical system that we have now. It takes no effort to just blindly follow the 10 Commandments and accept that they are the Right way of doing things. It is more difficult to actually think about and derive ethics than to just accept what is fed to you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How is this a problem? Subjectivism is used in science. The purpose of Harris' talk was addressing 'How Science can answer moral questions"

I have no doubt that I or anyone else can use logic and reason to answer our individual ethical dilemmas. The issue is whether or not the goals which we base our lines of reasoning on are subjective or objective as the goal is a major aspect of the ethical dilemma in and of itself.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Don't worry about it. I'll find out elsewhere.

Find out what? There is no question in the OP.

 

[Nusc]

Find out what? There is no question in the OP.

russ deleted it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The key components of a higher standard of living are again, nearly universally accepted: lifespan, freedom and comfort.

Subjective. Who says that I will be happier to live longer? Perhaps I would be happier to live a shorter time span if my perceived quality of life will be greater by ignoring those things that will increase my longevity. And what exactly constitutes freedom and comfort? To what degree am I willing to sacrifice my comfort for freedom and vice versa? Or to what degree am I willing to sacrifice longevity for freedom and comfort and vice versa?

Harris hit the crux, in my opinion, with the word "values", as we each value different things to differing degrees and our ethical choices will be based upon what we value more or less.

Edit: Sorry, I forgot the rest of your post.

Whichever is the most successful at providing a society that meets the generic goals of making humans survive and thrive is "better".

Better is still subjective. Even the idea that humans need or ought to survive is based on a subjective loyalty to our species. There is no reason why humans ought to develop and become "better" or even last another hundred years.

 

[russ_watters]

Something important to keep in mind, that I'm not sure people keep focused: My view of ethics feeds on human nature, it doesn't attempt to countermand human nature. This is the essential issue of the fight between communsim/socialism and democracy/capitalism as framed by Carroll. The problem is simple: if you attempt to fight human nature, you end up with conflict. You find a system that works with human nature and you will will be much more successful in achieving your goals.

In the 20th century, communism/socialism and democracy/capitalism both attempted to further human development in essentially the same ways, under the criteria I listed above. Communism/socialism failed, democracy/capitalism succeeded. Why? Because in order to function as designed, communism/socialism requires people to act contrary to their nature. By contrast, democracy/capitalism harnesses human nature to achieve the same goals.

 

[Nusc]

Something important to keep in mind, that I'm not sure people keep focused: My view of ethics feeds on human nature, it doesn't attempt to countermand human nature. This is the essential issue of the fight between communsim/socialism and democracy/capitalism as framed by Carroll. The problem is simple: if you attempt to fight human nature, you end up with conflict. You find a system that works with human nature and you will will be much more successful in achieving your goals.

In the 20th century, communism/socialism and democracy/capitalism both attempted to further human development in essentially the same ways, under the criteria I listed above. Communism/socialism failed, democracy/capitalism succeeded. Why? Because in order to function as designed, communism/socialism requires people to act contrary to their nature. By contrast, democracy/capitalism harnesses human nature to achieve the same goals.

What kind of socialism are you referring to?

 

[russ_watters]

I have no doubt that I or anyone else can use logic and reason to answer our individual ethical dilemmas. The issue is whether or not the goals which we base our lines of reasoning on are subjective or objective as the goal is a major aspect of the ethical dilemma in and of itself. [emphasis added]

On that, we are certainly agreed. How we get from point a to point b is almost always relatively easy to figure out with logic. Whether we want to get to point b or to point c (and why) is the real issue here.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

russ deleted it.

Ah. That was his way of suggesting that you ask elsewhere.

 

[russ_watters]

russ deleted it.

You posted about an awfully big philosophical issue for your only real point to be looking for a citation of a specific (and frankly, only tangentially relevant) point in a specific religious text. If you're not interested in discussing anything else you posted, so be it - we'll carry on without you.

That said, you went in a different direction with your post #3. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what you were driving at with post #3 because it looked interesting to me, but was somewhat vague/undeveloped.

 

[Nusc]

You posted about an awfully big philosophical issue for your only real point to be looking for a citation of a specific (and frankly, only tangentially relevant) point in a specific religious text. If you're not interested in discussing anything else you posted, so be it - we'll carry on without you.

That said, you went in a different direction with your post #3. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what you were driving at with post #3 because it looked interesting to me, but was somewhat vague/undeveloped.

Well his talk raises new debate on moral relativism. Spinoza held that nothing is inherently good or evil. So it's pretty much up to us to decide (subjectivism) what is, what 'we think' is 'good' or 'evil'. Harris sees no compromise between Islam and Christianity as they are fundamentally irreconcilable and destructive.

And what socialism were you referring to?

 

[russ_watters]

Subjective. Who says that I will be happier to live longer?

Most people. Maybe you misunderstand. It doesn't matter if the goal is subjective or objective, only that it be [nearly] universal. Take a poll of people. Do you think, perahps, 8 of 10 people would agree that lifespan is a good litmus test for development? Then that's the goal. It doesn't matter if you can derive the goal logically, only that you can derive the system of ethics required to achieve that goal logically.

That said, we can still discuss the goals themselves:

Perhaps I would be happier to live a shorter time span if my perceived quality of life will be greater by ignoring those things that will increase my longevity.

Most people would presume that lengthening lifespan does not include a decrease in quality. Quite the contrary, an increase in lifespan goes hand-in-hand with an increase in quality because it involves a reduction in things like accidental death and disease.

And what exactly constitutes freedom and comfort? To what degree am I willing to sacrifice my comfort for freedom and vice versa? Or to what degree am I willing to sacrifice longevity for freedom and comfort and vice versa?

That is quite a difficult consensus to find. But it is a secondary issue. As implied above, lifespan carries with it components of the other drivers of human behavior and is a dominant driver. This is Maslow's heirarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Harris hit the crux, in my opinion, with the word "values", as we each value different things to differing degrees and our ethical choices will be based upon what we value more or less.

Indeed, but why do people require values to be absolutely identical between people in order for a system of ethics to be "right"? It isn't the case with other aspects of evolution. If being taller presents a survival or sexual advantage, it doesn't mean that tall people will procreate and survive while short people won't, it just means that tall people will tend to procreate and survive more often. So too with ethics. The "better" system of ethics isn't absolutely always preferred, it only tends to be more preferred. We might call it "evolutionary pressure". Hemophelia? Very high evolutionary pressure against it. Desire to listen to Brittney Spears over Dvorak? Not much evolutionary pressure either way (unless that is connected to other issues, of course...).

Better is still subjective. Even the idea that humans need or ought to survive is based on a subjective loyalty to our species. There is no reason why humans ought to develop and become "better" or even last another hundred years.

If that's true, then we need to eliminate the concept altogether, because evolution has the goal of making species survive and thrive. Typically, people call that "better", but if you don't like the word or characterization, I'm not really sure what to call it. Maybe we just call it the driver of evolution. So we could say that the ethical system that evolution would push humans to follow would be the one that tends to make humans survive and thrive. I would say that is the definition of "better" but if you don't like the word, I'm not sure we really need it to have a productive discussion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Harris sees no compromise between Islam and Christianity as they are fundamentally irreconcilable and destructive.

Unfortunate for Harris' opinion is that many people who actually belong to both of these religions live peacefully next to one another in mutual respect. So apparently it is only within certain circumstances that people find these faiths irreconcilable and destructive and we can not say that they are fundamentally so.

It always makes me wonder why some atheists place so much emphasis on tidbits from books that they do not believe in and ignore the actual people that they are attempting to describe.

 

[russ_watters]

Since I think we'll get there eventually, a quick factoid: right now, the western - devloped - world has an essentially stagnant population growth rate, while the less developed east (and Africa) has a positive growth rate. Does that mean that low levels of what we now consider "development" provides a survival advantage? No: despite the fact that the developed world is getting larger, it is also getting more developed. The global poverty rate is dropping at a spectacular rate right now. So there really isn't much risk that evolution will push us back to the stone age.

It gets more complicated, but the development is probably the reason the less developed world continues to have population increases.

 

[Nusc]

He doesn't make references to his experiments in his talk, but apparently there is no distinction in the brain with those who are religious and those who are not ( http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/belief-in-the-brain-sacred-and-secular-ideas-engage-identical-areas/ )

Harris says that "it [religion] convinces us entirely about what God wants ..."

The assumptions monotheistic religions aren't necessary and, having watch the clip, gives rise to absurd actions. He's trying to encourage scientific thought.

 

[russ_watters]

Well his talk raises new debate on moral relativism. Spinoza held that nothing is inherently good or evil. So it's pretty much up to us to decide (subjectivism) what is, what 'we think' is 'good' or 'evil'.

Ok...is there an argument for why that is or should be true?

Harris sees no compromise between Islam and Christianity as they are fundamentally irreconcilable and destructive.

I'm not so sure he really meant that. It sounded more like he was being ironic to me: The different religions do, in fact, have very similar moralities and the fact that they choose to go to war over highly specific issues is pretty silly...and more importantly, not required.

And what socialism were you referring to?

Socialism as codified/developed/defined by Marx. Everything else is offshoots of that.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Most people. Maybe you misunderstand. It doesn't matter if the goal is subjective or objective, only that it be [nearly] universal. Take a poll of people. Do you think, perahps, 8 of 10 people would agree that lifespan is a good litmus test for development? Then that's the goal. It doesn't matter if you can derive the goal logically, only that you can derive the system of ethics required to achieve that goal logically.

I can give a value to each colour in a box of crayons, even poll people as to which colour they value more, and produce a logically constructed hierarchy of colour value. This does not make the argument that anyone colour is superior to another suddenly objective.

That said, we can still discuss the goals themselves: Most people would presume that lengthening lifespan does not include a decrease in quality. Quite the contrary, an increase in lifespan goes hand-in-hand with an increase in quality because it involves a reduction in things like accidental death and disease.

Unfortunately for most people they enjoy things that decrease their projected life span such as alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, driving fast, jumping out of airplanes, ect.

If that's true, then we need to eliminate the concept altogether, because evolution has the goal of making species survive and thrive. Typically, people call that "better", but if you don't like the word or characterization, I'm not really sure what to call it. Maybe we just call it the driver of evolution. So we could say that the ethical system that evolution would push humans to follow would be the one that tends to make humans survive and thrive. I would say that is the definition of "better" but if you don't like the word, I'm not sure we really need it to have a productive discussion.

[emphasis added] No it does not.
What happens in evolution simply happens. It is not goal driven and no thing is particularly "better" than another unless we apply subjective values.
I have no problem with subjective values and feeling that one thing may be better than another. I have a problem with the assertion that there is any objective basis to the claim of "better".

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunate for Harris' opinion is that many people who actually belong to both of these religions live peacefully next to one another in mutual respect. So apparently it is only within certain circumstances that people find these faiths irreconcilable and destructive and we can not say that they are fundamentally so.

It always makes me wonder why some atheists place so much emphasis on tidbits from books that they do not believe in and ignore the actual people that they are attempting to describe.

Both sides of an argument tend to piegeonhole the other side by focusing on the least reasonable parts of the argument. It's just easier that way. I suppose that's a good test of a quality argument, though: whether they really attack the heart of the argument or focus on non sequitur/strawman arguments around the periphery.

 

[Nusc]

Ok...is there an argument for why that is or should be true? I'm not so sure he really meant that. It sounded more like he was being ironic to me: The different religions do, in fact, have very similar moralities and the fact that they choose to go to war over highly specific issues is pretty silly...and more importantly, not required. Socialism as codified/developed/defined by Marx. Everything else is offshoots of that.

I'm inclined to think that this is an assumption that Harris is making. If we exclude 'good' and 'evil' as portrayed in religious doctrine and adopt Spinoza's ethics,
"So everyone, by the highest right of Nature, judges what is good and what is evil, considers his own advantage according to his own temperament... ." Not silly actually, "Elements of the Christian fundamentalist right are one of the strongest components of "support for Israel" -- support in a odd sense, because they presumably want to see it destroyed in a cosmic battle at Armageddon, after which all the proper souls will ascend to heaven -- or so I understand, again, not from close reading. They have provided enormous economic aid, again of a dubious sort. One of their goals seems to be to rebuild the Temple, which means destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque, which presumably means war with the Arab world -- one of the goals, perhaps, in fulfilling the prophecy of Armageddon. So they strongly support Israeli power and expansionism, and help fund it and lobby for it; but they also support actions that are very harmful and objectionable to most of its population -- as do Jewish fundamentalist groups, mostly rooted in the US, which, after all, is one of the most extreme religious fundamentalist societies in the world."

Noam Chomsky



Content in the video is quite disturbing. This is precisely why we need people like Harris to spread secularism.

 

[russ_watters]

I can give a value to each colour in a box of crayons, even poll people as to which colour they value more, and produce a logically constructed hierarchy of colour value. This does not make the argument that anyone colour is superior to another suddenly objective.

Agreed! Again, I think you're getting too hung up on the concept of "better/best" when evolution isn't about value judgements, it is only about tracking the direction. The direction we are going is by definition the "better" direction. If you are uncomfortable with the implied value judgement, fine. You can remove the words and the value judgement and it changes nothing about the rest of the argument.

Unfortunately for most people they enjoy things that decrease their projected life span such as alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, driving fast, jumping out of airplanes, ect.

Granted, but despite that, we're still living a lot longer than we were 100 years ago. To some exent, the development has been so rapid (4 generations to double our life expectancy) that it has gone beyond what we could really consider "evolution". At worst, we can say that we've traded risk factors we couldn't choose for risk factors we could.

[emphasis added] No it does not.
What happens in evolution simply happens. It is not goal driven and no thing is particularly "better" than another unless we apply subjective values.

What? No! Evolution happens because certain traits provide a survival advantage (or reproduction advantage) over other traits. Advantage = better. That's not subjective, that's objective. The can be used to push evolution in a desired direction or predict an evolutionary direction. Ozone hole opens up? Blacks will survive while whites will die of skin cancer. Predators are killed? Deer will multiply.

Again, I think you're hung up on the word "better". The word "better" doesn't mean that it is "better" to have more deer running around Pennsylvania, only that deer are "better" able to survive/thrive in this environment than the one that existed a few hundred years ago. It is an objective numbers game, not a value judgement.

I have no problem with subjective values and feeling that one thing may be better than another. I have a problem with the assertion that there is any objective basis to the claim of "better".

Well this is the reason the concept of personal freedom exists. We don't do subjective judgements on whether smoking is ok or not unless it is shown to infringe on the rights of others. If people want to do it and it enhances their lives, so be it. But that is a completely different question from whether it imparts a survival advantage over not smoking. What is right for the species doesn't need to match the desires of an individual.

 

[Nusc]

The issue is whether or not the goals which we base our lines of reasoning on are subjective or objective as the goal is a major aspect of the ethical dilemma in and of itself.

Why not both? The same is done in science.

 

[russ_watters]

TSE, I think I see the problem here: I'm creating a bridge between two completely separate uses of the word "better".

First, "better" from an evolutionary standpoint is a completely objective description of what has caused an organism to evolve in a certain direction. Sperm evolve tails, multiplying the number of offspring? That's "better" from a strictly objective biolgical point of view.

Second is "better" from an ethical point of view. This is more difficult, but I agree that to individuals, ethics is largely subjective. But if we bridge the two concepts, we can come up with an objective basis for ethics. Take a consensus of what people subjectively consider "better" and via logic find the ethical system that makes us evolve in that direction.

But wait, what if the consensus is a consensus ethical behavior that drives us to extinction...? Can it really be biologically "better"...?

 

[Nusc]

But wait, what if the consensus is a consensus ethical behavior that drives us to extinction...? Can it really be biologically "better"...?

If rational - perpetuation
If irrational - extinction

What does TSE mean?

 

[russ_watters]

TSE is TheStatutoryApe's initials.

 

[arildno]

A persistent trouble with utopians is that they think they know the place where we all ought to reside (and what does it then matter, the types of obstacles we might meet on our journey there?).

A conservative is not too sure about that we can know that place, and would rather consider which of the available directions seems best to walk along, wherever that might lead us.
On the premise of being in an imperfect state, why should we be so arrogant to think we already know where we ought to be?
We might figure out the correct compass direction at any particular time, but not our eventual destination.

On the other hand, a conservative might easily become complacent with the status quo, saying it's probably the best we can hope for anyway, since the present is the reality that has happened to come into existence..

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSE, I think I see the problem here: I'm creating a bridge between two completely separate uses of the word "better".

First, "better" from an evolutionary standpoint is a completely objective description of what has caused an organism to evolve in a certain direction. Sperm evolve tails, multiplying the number of offspring? That's "better" from a strictly objective biolgical point of view.

Second is "better" from an ethical point of view. This is more difficult, but I agree that to individuals, ethics is largely subjective. But if we bridge the two concepts, we can come up with an objective basis for ethics. Take a consensus of what people subjectively consider "better" and via logic find the ethical system that makes us evolve in that direction.

But wait, what if the consensus is a consensus ethical behavior that drives us to extinction...? Can it really be biologically "better"...?

I was thinking the same thing, regarding your use of the word "better". It seems to me that you are using subjective verbiage to describe an objective process and there by creating an illusion of a bridge between the subjective and objective.
In the end it appears that we have a rather similar opinion only that we are stuck on what constitutes subjective versus objective. I feel that it makes a difference. People who feel that they have a truly objective ethical frame work are perhaps at danger of feeling that theirs is superior, delegitimizing dissent, and possibly coming to an eventual static impasse. At the moment I need to think more and come back with a new direction from which to tackle this.