Is an atheist a better person?

[oracle13]

Perhaps humans instinctively know what's right and wrong, genetically hardwired as our conscience by evolution, to be accessed by whatever ritual belief system that developed in each of our little isolated corners of the world.

??

I agreed with everything you said up to this point. Do you really belief ethics is grounded in evolution? That seems ridiculous to me. Excuse my lack of specific knowledge on the theory of evolution if you decide to take this up with me, but a belief in an 'evolutionary,' or perhaps 'Darwinistic' system of morality surely only leads to eugenics!?

[rez]

Quote by: oracle13 ?? I agreed with everything you said up to this point. Do you really belief ethics is grounded in evolution?

When a zoologist can go in the jungle, look at chimpanzees interact with eachother and see that they have ethical and moral issues too, then yes ethics is indeed grounded in evolution.

a belief in an 'evolutionary,' or perhaps 'Darwinistic' system of morality surely only leads to eugenics!?

Get over yourself. The fact that women can put plastic in their breasts to make them look bigger can be seen as eugenics. The fact that two married adults can have a kid and can decide to turn off one of their babies genes to give them blue eyes instead of brown can be seen as eugenics. A person buying eye glasses can be seen as eugenics. And yet, do you think these people have a strong faith in the Theory of Evolution? Most people don't understand ToE and just mindlessly believe in creationism.

I would even argue that knowledge and understanding of the Theory of Evolution will make a person hate the idea of eugenics.

Just because a scientist may discover how genes work and how to manipulate them does not mean they don't give themselves boundaries of what to do and what not to do. Knowledge is certainly a deadly friend if nobody sets the rules.

[oracle13]

I don't really understand what you've said.

Just because a scientist may discover how genes work and how to manipulate them does not mean they don't give themselves boundaries of what to do and what not to do. Knowledge is certainly a deadly friend if nobody sets the rules.

Where do these rules come from? I thought you were arguing they came 'inbuilt' via evolution??

The fact that women can put plastic in their breasts to make them look bigger can be seen as eugenics. The fact that two married adults can have a kid and can decide to turn off one of their babies genes to give them blue eyes instead of brown can be seen as eugenics. A person buying eye glasses can be seen as eugenics.

Well I agree with the second example but the first and last don't really work as they will not pass on their 'new genes' (ie: there is no genetic modification) and there is no natural selection at work. But yes I think that there is a significant problem with the second option. So what is your position on it? Sterilise the handicapped because we need to improve the human race?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: oracle I agreed with everything you said up to this point. Do you really belief ethics is grounded in evolution? That seems ridiculous to me. Excuse my lack of specific knowledge on the theory of evolution if you decide to take this up with me,...

If you're new around here... yes, I absolutely believe that human beings are genetically hardwired by evolution for religious belief, and since religion is constantly connected with it, morality. I've been discussing it here for years and it's been an increasingly well-established field of scientific study called Neurotheology since the late '90s.

Are humans hard-wired for faith? - CNN, Aprl 2007

This Is Your Brain on God - WIRED, 1999

Faith in the Brain - ABC New, May, 2007

Some of my previous posts explaining my thinking...

Neural Buddhism

"Oneness with the Universe"

the Golden Rule

Quote by: oracle ...but a belief in an 'evolutionary,' or perhaps 'Darwinistic' system of morality surely only leads to eugenics!?

Is this a variation of Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies? "The longer the discussion of evolution and humans, the more the probability of someone bringing up eugenics."?

What's wrong with believing that "Morality" is nothing more than a social formalization of what our hardwired instincts - our consciences - tell us everyday. "Let your conscience be your guide". How else do you explain that religions from every formerly isolated corner of the globe all teach essentially the same moral codes? Don't murder, except to defend your tribe, don't steal, don't lie, don't commit adultery, obey your parents and treat others as you would have them treat you.

Evolution has created humans that survive in nature by being social animals. Why wouldn't evolution also endow our high powered, imaginative, creative brains with the means to control our baser survival instincts - lust, aggression, greed, ambition, etc. - when necessary for the harmonious cooperation of the social group? After all, what else is morality?

Quote by: oracle Where do these rules come from? I thought you were arguing they came 'inbuilt' via evolution??

That's exactly what Rez is saying. We set our own rules based on our own survival instincts... but because we can't explain where they come from - until recently - we've invented 'God' as the only source that makes sense to us.

.

[Jack]

Is this a variation of Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies?

The updated version is now known as the "Ben Stein-Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed" theory of evolution leading to the Holocaust.

[oracle13]

OK, firstly, let me clarify my original statement. In fact, let me completely retract it, morality is of course grounded in evolution. As is every other discipline of study, if you are a materialist, and believe in evolution.

I read some of the links you posted, and the golden rule thing is very interesting.

Here is my main concern with your way of thinking. If all religions have come up with exactly the same moral codes, how can there possibly be any differences between us, in terms of morality. And the answer is of course that we are not all born equal, and the distribution of wealth is not equal at all, because of the genetic lottery, etc etc, and this clearly creates all the problems of politics/morality that exist in the world today.

This identifies the problem, as I see it, with your view on morality. I can completely agree with the idea that specific stimuli to different parts of the brain produces what some might term a 'religious experience,' and that the brain may have been hard-wired for faith in a 'presence' as an evolutionary safeguard. However, how does this help us in any way with our ethical and political problems.

1a I want to listen to music really loud on the train.
1b I don't care if other people listen to their music really loud on the train.

2a Martha hates hearing other people's music on the train.
2b Martha would never play her music really loud on the train.

Clearly the golden rule applies here, but we each have different desires for ourselves, and because of this we have different perceptions of how we would wish people would act towards us.

Personally, I can subscribe, not yet but potentially, with more hard evidence, to the theory that the capacity for religious experience, spirituality etc is to be found within every human brain (although I feel like there will be huge value differences between different people on what exactly there religious experience is constituted of...for my part, I've never felt a presence, and the closest thing to spirituality I've come across is in music and fictional literature.

You say that:

Why wouldn't evolution also endow our high powered, imaginative, creative brains with the means to control our baser survival instincts - lust, aggression, greed, ambition, etc. - when necessary for the harmonious cooperation of the social group?

The exact questions that morality and politics pose is HOW MUCH should we regulate these instincts. Certainly evolution has provided the means (practical reason). So, from what you've said, it seems to me that morality is grounded in evolution, in that all human thought is grounded in evolution. However, a precise knowledge of the way in which the human brain works will only partly aid, but not solve, our quest for the 'ideal' morality, or, it will confirm total moral subjectivity and relativity.

The crucial conflict between freedom and equality, two universally highly valued ideas, is not at all solved by neurotheology or any scientific discipline.

So in conclusion I formally retract my statement that morality is not grounded in evolution, but I stand by my statement on a prior thread that a full understanding of the brain will bring us no closer to addressing the central problems of morality and politics.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: oracle If all religions have come up with exactly the same moral codes, how can there possibly be any differences between us, in terms of morality. And the answer is of course that we are not all born equal, and the distribution of wealth is not equal at all, because of the genetic lottery, etc etc, and this clearly creates all the problems of politics/morality that exist in the world today.

Nah, it's way easier than that. You're thinking too hard in terms of individuals.

First off, what's an instinct? Well, we tend to think of lower animals, who live their whole lives blindly responding to sets of genetic instructions. But let's think of higher animals, where instincts start to combine with learned behaviors. My favorite example is wolf cub. It's born with an instinct 'To Hunt', but it spends it's early life learning 'How' to Hunt from its pack, otherwise it will almost certainly starve to death. With humans, and our complex brains, it only gets more complex.

So what other unique instincts do humans possess? How about the instinct for language? Neuro scientists can point out the exact language and speech centers in the brain. They'll point out how very young children have an incredible instinctive capacity to learn language, a capacity they'll lose as they grow older. It's sorta like downloading an operating system... a child has to quickly absorb the operating language, but once learned, they no longer need to that ability to quickly learn language.

Yet we don't all speak the same language, do we? Far from it.

Same with religion. I never said humans all had EXACTLY the same moral codes, I said BASICALLY the same. Ever study Anthropology? Cultural norms and mores around the world are -- if you compare them to another species -- basically the same, but if you inspect them closely they can very dramatically, depending on the physical environment, neighboring cultures, histories, etc. Look at Asian religions...China, Korea, Japan, etc...despite having social morals not too unlike the west, their religions are largely non-theist. Buddhism, Taoism, Confucionism, etc. do not have gods or divinities. Some have spirits... Shintoism is based on spirits in nature, the Chinese worship the spirits of their ancestors. Hindus, on the other hand, have polytheism, an entire panolpy of overlapping gods. And then there's the Abrahamic religions... Judaism, Christianity, Islam... and in Europe and America, Christianity is a cultural mishmash of old world European paganism combined with Christianity,.. thus our celebrations of Christmas, Easter, Halloween, etc.

Quote by: oracle And the answer is of course that we are not all born equal, and the distribution of wealth is not equal at all, because of the genetic lottery, etc etc, and this clearly creates all the problems of politics/morality that exist in the world today.

Nah... while religion can touch on social inequality, I think your point has more to do with other human instincts han religion; ambition, lust, motivation, acquisitiveness, aggressiveness, jealousy, etc. etc. In fact, it's part of why I believe we have an instinct for religion... among other things, a counterbalance to these other aggressive instincts that allows us to redirect them in the service of something bigger than ourselves; social harmony and cooperation, summoning empathy and compassion toward helping out the less fortunate.

Quote by: oracle However, how does this help us in any way with our ethical and political problems?

In Buddhism they call it 'Nirvana'... it's an overwhelming sense of 'Oneness with the Universe' that's achieved through chanting and meditation. It's not unlike the rapturous sense of 'Oneness with God' that other religions experience with prayer, often combined with chanting, dance or singing. In this state of 'Oneness' you are no longer concerned with your petty personal problems... you're one with all things, at peace. During such a state, or even just touching on such a state in a Church service, people are much more amenable to fellowship, to letting down their personal barriers, bonding with each other, caring about each other, feeling as part of a greater whole. And they're more willing to be told to discipline themselves to follow the moral laws of the society -- as conveyed by those with an even higher capacity for religious experience... Priests -- for the good of the society, and if those laws come from a totally unimpeachable source...

...like, say, God...

...it's even harder not to follow the rules. Thus religion allows us to constantly experience a closeness with the universe, and our society, and to renew our vows to follow the rules that insure harmonious cooperation within the society.

As an added bonus, religion also provides personal comfort, calm and strength on a individual level, to fortify and renew us in times of stress.

Quote by: oracle 2b Martha would never play her music really loud on the train. Clearly the golden rule applies here, but we each have different desires for ourselves, and because of this we have different perceptions of how we would wish people would act towards us.

Yet you both speak a language, you both like music of some sort, you both wear clothes, and neither of you is likely to pull out a dagger and stab the other one over loud music.

You can focus on little exceptions like this all you like, but the reality is that your example is more likely the exception than the rule. Most people will NOT intentionally annoy a trainload of strangers with loud music, and those that do are probably driven by their own particular set of instincts.

Like rebellious youthful, aggression. Research has determined that young men -- from about 16 to 22 or so -- show increased aggressiveness, are more fearless, less empathetic, and more pliable to the influence by both their peer group and to strong leaders.

Can you think of a use for such seemingly anti-social traits?

How about as cannon fodder? Soldiers. Young warriors at their physical peak, willing to fearlessly follow their leaders into hell to defend their tribe.

Quote by: oracle The exact questions that morality and politics pose is HOW MUCH should we regulate these instincts.

Indeed... exactly the problem. We all have a conscious mind that can conceptualize, analyze, imagine, invent, etc. so we can seemingly choose when and when not to give in to our instincts. For instance, lust or sexual desire. Our baser instincts would have us humping like bunnies with whatever mates we could win, by force if necessary. Our higher instincts, on the other hand, inform us that the consequence of sex is procreation, and that the social group is better served by having children raised in loving, cohesive family units that can provide for and nurture them.

So, which instinct do we obey? Alas, each of us is an incredibly complex combination of inherited physical and mental traits and abilities combined with a lifetime of experiences and learning within an equally complex defining environment.

Thus the answer to your question is that there's an almost infinite variety of responses to any given situation, but one can certainly guarantee that it will be a HUMAN response.... meaning that, unless the individual is a total freak, it will likely fall within a clearly defined range of responses. Rape would be anti-social, and therefore punishable. A shallow one night stand would be fun, but the practical dangers of pregnancy provide incentive for women to be more cautious. Patient, disciplined courting with the goal of eventual sexual satisfaction within marriage is the most socially advantageous solution.

Quote by: oracle The crucial conflict between freedom and equality, two universally highly valued ideas, is not at all solved by neurotheology or any scientific discipline.

As you pointed out, there really is no such thing as equality, as we learn day in and day out. Everyone is different. However, in a harmonious, cooperative society, we learn that each human can contribute their individual strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Still, those with an abundance of strengths may do inordinately well while whose with few strengths will struggle.

Such is the nature of survival. But with a spiritual over-ride instinct, humans can employ empathy and compassion to care for those swho truggle more than most.

Quote by: oracle a full understanding of the brain will bring us no closer to addressing the central problems of morality and politics.

Certainly a fair statement. Made all the more complex by the dramatic changes in the human condition by our social evolutions as humans rapidly expand and technically advance our way through history.

.

[oracle13]

I never said humans all had EXACTLY the same moral codes, I said BASICALLY the same. Ever study Anthropology? Cultural norms and mores around the world are -- if you compare them to another species -- basically the same, but if you inspect them closely they can very dramatically, depending on the physical environment, neighboring cultures, histories, etc.

This part of your argument is CRUCIAL, and you've kind of blown it off. Evolution has led us to have 'basically' the same codes of morality. 'Basically,' is your kind of top-down perspective where you look at all cultures throughout human history and notice the golden rule. All very interesting, so humans have a lot of the same ideas, and this is probably because we have very similar brains, I agree.

But then you go on to explain the 'dramatic' differences that you see upon closer inspection, and give three reasons:

-physical environment
-neighbouring cultures
-history

These three things that you've stated, if your theory is USEFUL, should be able to explain all the inequalities in the world today. You might be able to find examples of how your suggested differences have caused these inequalities, but they certainly do not provide a full picture, and neither can you, there is a huge body of work dedicated to researching this problem and answers range from geography to genetic to social (which by your argument means genetic) issues.

Which leads me to my next point, 'social' issues, in your view, and my view (eventually, but not today, not without adequate use for this kind of linguistic approach!) can be reduced to genetic ones.

Altruism can be summed up by our 'higher instinct' (as you put it to) of being able to override ride our lower instincts. Your example of morally good behaviour:

Thus the answer to your question is that there's an almost infinite variety of responses to any given situation, but one can certainly guarantee that it will be a HUMAN response.... meaning that, unless the individual is a total freak, it will likely fall within a clearly defined range of responses. Rape would be anti-social, and therefore punishable. A shallow one night stand would be fun, but the practical dangers of pregnancy provide incentive for women to be more cautious. Patient, disciplined courting with the goal of eventual sexual satisfaction within marriage is the most socially advantageous solution.

Yes, I agree that morality, eventually, can be summed up in the formula that you are using - identify the behaviour that you most desire, check it with your knowledge of the probable desires of those that your desire affects, assess the likelihood that your desired behaviour will be acceptable to those around you, act accordingly.

This completely ignores individual desire! Why are there so many different political issues at stake? Because different social groups have very different desires depending on their situation. My example of the music on the train is not at all the exception to the rule! Imagine I am a working class dude and I get really sick and all of a sudden can't provide for my family. I want a National Health Service to make sure I get free healthcare so that I am even more not crippled. I look around me, I see a lot of rich people. I think, well, if I was in their position, I would certainly give my money to the government to ensure people like me didn't suffer so much.

I'm now a rich person, and I see the poor sick working class guy, and I think, wow, he really failed to get ahead in life, and now he's demanding my money so that he doesn't starve. What an asshole! I think to myself, you know what, if I was in his position, I wouldn't even want to steal money from those who've worked hard to get where they are today. People like that are just a drain on the economy.

Here I've illustrated a classic example of a political argument between socialist and conservative policies, brought about by different desires, which are brought about by differences in the social system, which are brought about by...

geography
neighbouring cultures
history

??

Your top-down approach might be able to help us identify a few, possibly universal principles, ie: don't murder, unless to defend your tribe. But when it comes down to the real gritty problems of politics and morality it has pretty much nothing to say, except, the status quo is correct (because according to the golden rule, you shouldn't do anything you wouldn't want done to yourself, and those desires are inherent to the social system that has been conditioned into you by your parents, and their parents before them.

Basically, I'm not overcomplicating the matter, your just hugely underestimating the complicated nature of the problem!

Have you read any John Rawls incidentally?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: oracle But then you go on to explain the 'dramatic' differences that you see upon closer inspection, and give three reasons: -physical environment -neighbouring cultures -history

Yeah... so? Did you totally miss my analogy to language? The fact that humans all possess the exact same evolutionary capacity for language doesn't mean we all going to speak the same language. The exact opposite is true, and for the very reasons I mentioned earlier...

- physical environment
- neighboring cultures
- history

Look at a famous exception to the rule, the anomoly of the Basque people living in Northern Spain and Southern France. They speak a language that bears absolutely no resemblance to the romance languages that dominate the surrounding nations of Portugal, Spain, Italy and France. The Basques are the sole remnant of the Paleolithic peoples who inhabited the region and were pushed into their small corner of the world, in the western base of the Pyranees mountains, by the Gauls, Franks, Romans and other major migrations. And yet, by some bizarre confluence of physical environment (mountains), neighboring cultures and history, their isolated pocket of language remains intact.

So yes, on close inspection, many religions around the world might appear dramatically different, yet, like language, they all serve the same purpose and teach a remarkably consistent set of moral values. (I forgot to mention last time that they all seem to have some form of Sabbath) They all rely on some form of prayer or meditation, of ritual or liturgy, and of chanting, dancing or singing, and the guidance of a priesthood to induce a religious state among the faithful, to bond the group under a common set of rules, of differentiating them from "others", and providing a way to find strength and solace in times of stress.

Quote by: Oracle You might be able to find examples of how your suggested differences have caused these inequalities, but they certainly do not provide a full picture, and neither can you, there is a huge body of work dedicated to researching this problem and answers range from geography to genetic to social (which by your argument means genetic) issues.

Inequities in society are as old as societies. Again, review your anthropology. Even small tribes have their alpha leaders surrounded by their privileged circle, and with the evolution into agriculture and civilization, these alphas were institutionalized as the 'Nobility'. Almost uniformly throughout history, the 'Nobility' has comprised around 10 to 20% of every population, with the remainder being dirt poor peasents, whether you're referring to Ancient Egypt, pre-Columbian America, Indian castes, the European fuedal age, Chinese Mandarins or Hawaiian Ali'i. Even today in the supposedly 'classless' United States, a consistant 20% of the upper class has owned about 90% of the nation's wealth, with the middle and working classes ebbing and flowing with the remainder, depending on the point in history. The American middle class exploding inordinately after the U.S. - the only industrialized nation left untouched by the cataclysm of WWII - took over as the worlds economic super-power. Now, as the rest of world has recovered and is catching up, America's middle and working classes are struggling to maintain their artificial, temporary affluence.

Quote by: Oracle Altruism can be summed up by our 'higher instinct' (as you put it to) of being able to override ride our lower instincts.

I suspect that altruism also depends on the overall success of the social group and the means available to be altruistic.

Quote by: Oracle But when it comes down to the real gritty problems of politics and morality it has pretty much nothing to say, except, the status quo is correct (because according to the golden rule, you shouldn't do anything you wouldn't want done to yourself, and those desires are inherent to the social system that has been conditioned into you by your parents, and their parents before them.

Obviously, oracle, because we don't 'think' in terms of 'Instinct'. We think in terms of how our conscious mind is interpreting what we experience and feel.

If you go to a nightclub and see a hot babe, you don't think, "Omigosh, my sexual instincts are compelling me to preen and compete to share my genes with that genetically superior female over there".

To the contrary, while you experience exactly that instinct, you interpret it based on infinite layers of learned behaviors, cultural norms, etc. etc. that comes out, "Wow, she is totally hot... wonder if I have a chance... will my (pick one: rocker, biker, surfer, goth, yuppie, artsy, preppy, intellectual, jock) appearance impress her?"

So yeah, out in the real world of social politics, the rat race, sex, love and marriage, etc. things get vastly more complicated than simply, "Hmmm, what are my genes telling me?"

That doesn't mean that, in the end, you aren't doing exactly what your genes are telling you... it's just a matter of which genes are telling you more than others, and how that message gets sorted out by your infinitely complex conscious mind.

Quote by: oracle Basically, I'm not overcomplicating the matter, your just hugely underestimating the complicated nature of the problem!

Actually, no, I'm not, as I just tried to point out above.

Quote by: oracle Have you read any John Rawls incidentally?

No, but if it means anything, I'm a communitarian Democrat who believes that society, including it's political mechanism, the government, is obliged to favor the welfare of communities, not individuals.

.

[oracle13]

OK. I feel certain that you must be aware of the implications of your beliefs, but if you aren't I will spell them out for you. Language, religion, morality, inequality, etc etc, are part of our built-in human condition. Ultimately, our brains have a mechanism that allows all humans to learn language and connect, all humans have similar desires (food, shelter, sex), this plus language makes it beneficial for humans to work together in order to attain their desires with greater ease. Moral decisions are, thus, a result of our brain functions taking in stimuli, rendering them through whatever brain processes we have evolved, and outputting a certain behaviour.

That doesn't mean that, in the end, you aren't doing exactly what your genes are telling you...

Any current brain state that I am in can thus be causally attributed to a prior brain state, and that to a prior one - but there can't be an infinite regress - indeed the ultimate cause for our first brain state is the genetics that make up our brains. Thus we lose ultimate responsibility for our own actions as they are ultimately caused by our genetics.

Morale judgements, therefore, are simply our own ways of expressing that the behaviour of a certain person are not conducive to our own desires/would not have resulted in the same behavioural output if we were in that situation. But, if this is the case, how can we attribute responsibility to the man who kills our dog if he has simply acted through his inbuilt genetics, we he cannot possibly have had any say in. Everyone is rational. We can simply condemn him because most people/the most powerful people would not have done the same thing in the same circumstance.

I have much more to say, but I would like to know whether you were aware of this implication of your beliefs.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Oracle OK. I feel certain that you must be aware of the implications of your beliefs, but if you aren't I will spell them out for you. Language, religion, morality, inequality, etc etc, are part of our built-in human condition.

Yeah, okay so far.

Quote by: Oracle Ultimately, our brains have a mechanism that allows all humans to learn language and connect, all humans have similar desires (food, shelter, sex), this plus language makes it beneficial for humans to work together in order to attain their desires with greater ease.

Indeed. Like I said, we evolved as social animals. We survive by working harmoniously and cooperatively together, and therefore anything that interferes with that harmonious cooperation -- like killing people without good cause, lying, stealing, adultery, disobedience, etc. is considered immoral.

Quote by: Oracle Moral decisions are, thus, a result of our brain functions taking in stimuli, rendering them through whatever brain processes we have evolved, and outputting a certain behaviour.

I don't disagree at all. Where do we differ??

Quote by: Oracle Moral judgments, therefore, are simply our own ways of expressing that the behaviour of a certain person are not conducive to our own desires/would not have resulted in the same behavioural output if we were in that situation.

Actually, I see it as behaviors that are conducive to the survival of the tribe. For example, to an uneducated mind, homosexuality can be seen as counter-productive to the successful growth of the society because they can't create children and therefore waste valuable reproductive assets... yet it's entirely possible (and hypothesised) that gays are nature's contribution of non-breeding 'helpers' who actually benefit the child rearing of others.

(Which makes more sense if you keep in mind that "Civilized" societies have only existed over the last 6,000 years or so while Homo Sapiens have existed for about 50,000 years or so... meaning the vast majority of modern man's evolutionary time on earth has been spent in paleolithic tribal conditions.)

Anyway, the "immorality" of homosexuality stems from the perception of what's best for the society's survival and ages ago, with high infant mortality, high birth mortality and lower life spans, I imagine folks figured that every pregnancy counted.

Likewise, adultery is immoral because it's divisive to harmonious child-rearing family units. Same with sex outside of marriage... it creates children outside of protection of normal family units. Incest is immoral because people somehow understood that it was genetically destructive. And Blasphemy is immoral because it denies the infallibility of God's rules.

Quote by: Oracle I have much more to say, but I would like to know whether you were aware of this implication of your beliefs.

Maybe I missed it, but what implication is that?

.

[oracle13]

Thus we lose ultimate responsibility for our own actions as they are ultimately caused by our genetics.

The future is determinate, free will is incompatible, there is no such thing as moral responsibility, thus we cannot justify punishment for any action.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: oracle Thus we lose ultimate responsibility for our own actions as they are ultimately caused by our genetics.

Who are you quoting? Certainly not me. I've stated repeatedly that we have the conscious ability to conceptualize beyond ourselves and over-rule - to greater or lesser degrees - our many human instincts for the sake of social harmony.

Which is EXACTLY why I hypothesized the existence of a 'Religion Gene'... a brain function that provides us a state of consciousness that encourages us to do exactly that... be disciplined and control our baser instincts for the sake of right and wrong.

Quote by: oracle The future is determinate, free will is incompatible, there is no such thing as moral responsibility, thus we cannot justify punishment for any action.

I never said that either. We each respond to a unique, individually tailored combination of pre-determined instincts that were provided by evolution for our benefit -- lust, ambition, aggression, compassion, jealousy, humor, musicality, emotion -- and many, many others, all of which we possess in uniquely varying degrees and which serve us in surviving in nature. But we always have the conscious ability to modify our response to those instincts, which, were we to allow them, could just as easily become counter-productive... again, lust, ambition, aggression, acquisitiveness, etc. carried too far become crimes. Lust in the form of child molesting, incest, rape, or just inappropriate conduct carry penalties, for which we are all held responsible. Aggression gone out of control leads to assault, murder, etc. And yes, some folks ARE genetically inclined towards anti-social behavior... socio and psychopaths, for instance, who really can't be held accountable for their actions, yet present too much of a danger to be allowed free. For the rest of us, we are all held accountable for consciously keeping a lid on our baser impulses because we all have the tools necessary to do so.

Evolution designed us to be successful. Thus I have faith that my natural instincts of right and wrong, my hard-wired moral compass, will guide me in being a productive and useful member of the herd... err... the social group.

Even if God doesn't.

.

[Morality Games]

The future is determinate, free will is incompatible, there is no such thing as moral responsibility, thus we cannot justify punishment for any action.

You are presupposing free will and moral responsibility are the only possible justifications for punishing action. Determinists rely on practicality as a justification when they punish wrongdoers.

[oracle13]

Who are you quoting?

I was quoting myself, I was repeating something that I said in a previous post.

And in the previous post I wasn't quoting you but I was paraphrasing your arguments leading to the inevitable conclusion. You are missing a key step in the argument, I don't think you quite grasp the significance... for example here:

I've stated repeatedly that we have the conscious ability to conceptualize beyond ourselves and over-rule - to greater or lesser degrees - our many human instincts for the sake of social harmony.

For any mental state, any state of thinking that we are in at the moment, that leads us to make a behavioural output, there has to have been a previous mental state caused by a previous physical state etc etc that led us to be in that state. If we trace it back all the way to the very first mental 'cause,' if you will, it is inevitably our genetic coding and formation while in the womb. Because of this, my actions are, for better or worse, determined, by my genetics.

That's not to say that we can't learn behavior - for example if I hit you, I may have been 'predisposed' to do it simply because I didn't have the knowledge enabling my brain to allow me to 'choose' the 'better' choice; you will probably be very angry that I hit you and you might hit me back, leading to new knowledge that my brain can filter into its decision making process for the next time.

Its all very well making an abitrary distinction between normal people and sociopaths. Where on earth are you getting this random line from, however? Imagine, for example, that I appear to be completely normal socially (and thus genetically). I'm walking down the street and all of a sudden I see a gorgeous, naked, but obviously too young girl begging me to take her right there. There is no possible way I'll get caught. You might argue that were I really a 'normal' person my consciousness would be able to override my baser instincts. But my genetics have left me predisposed so that if I am in this exact situation where I can take advantage of a young girl and get away with it 100%, i literally have no choice but to do it. No one will ever no that I am a statutory rapist, but unfortunately I am, and though it may seem like I had the choice to do otherwise, I was simply unable, just like the 'real' psycopath, to restrain my desire. Does this make me a lunatic?

You are presupposing free will and moral responsibility are the only possible justifications for punishing action. Determinists rely on practicality as a justification when they punish wrongdoers.

What does practicality mean in any given instance? I understand where your coming from though. What, for example, is more practical about locking a serial killer in prison and (some would argue) wasting state money than murdering him on the spot?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: oracle And in the previous post I wasn't quoting you but I was paraphrasing your arguments leading to the inevitable conclusion.

Since I completely disagree with your "inevitable conclusion", you've apparently misunderstood some or all of my argument.

Quote by: oracle You might argue that were I really a 'normal' person my consciousness would be able to override my baser instincts. But my genetics have left me predisposed so that if I am in this exact situation where I can take advantage of a young girl and get away with it 100%, i literally have no choice but to do it. No one will ever no that I am a statutory rapist, but unfortunately I am, and though it may seem like I had the choice to do otherwise, I was simply unable, just like the 'real' psycopath, to restrain my desire. Does this make me a lunatic?

I understand where you're going, except that when I read your example, my response would be say, No... I would absolutely not take advantage of the girl, even if no one would know. Number one, I would know! And altruism would probably be the least of my motivations, behind fear and skepticism. Indeed, my libido would be screaming at me, "Full speed ahead!"... but my red flags would also be screaming at me. "What's wrong with this picture? Nubile young nymphs do not come offering themselves out of nowhere, unless they expect to get something! Danger, Will Robinson!"

And then, of course, is the fact that someone else would know.... SHE would. Maybe she's looped on drugs and, in a fit of remorse, will finger me the next day? Is a pleasure that I know will make me feel horribly guilty worth the risk?

So you see, the rational, analytical conscious mind can over-rule instincts, no matter how hard they might be gripping you. But I could certainly find far more realistic and difficult temptations... I'm married, but meet a beautiful, horny gal on a trip far from home. I find a bank bag filled with $100,000 in cash. Some small, drunken moron cuts in front of me in a line, then rudely and loudly insults me when I protest. You find someone trapped in a car being engulfed in flames.

Life is filled with all kinds of scenerios where conflicting human instincts move you to act, but your conscious, analytical mind -- or your conscience -- can over rule or not.

Quote by: oracle I was simply unable, just like the 'real' psycopath, to restrain my desire. Does this make me a lunatic?

I dunno... would you feel remorse? The thing about sociopaths is that they know what they're doing, they just don't give a sh!t who or what they hurt.

Quote by: Morality Games You are presupposing free will and moral responsibility are the only possible justifications for punishing action. Determinists rely on practicality as a justification when they punish wrongdoers.

Explain, please.

.