Atheists who believe in objective morality

[magellan004]

Fundamentally the evolutionary process does not go 'wrong' nor 'right' from the human perspective. The facts of the nature of morals and ethics observed in humanity, like other physical and behavior characteristics, is that dominance of those characteristics that contribute to the survival of the species is what determines that the species will survive.

Morals and ethics are an intimate part of the human cooperative social fabric that promotes the survival of the community and society.

The ability of individuals make choices only in and of itself does not determine the morals and ethics of humans. All it says is some will make good choices and some bad. Survival of the species is only dependent on the majority making good choices.

No, no, no.
The evolutionary model of morals = Survival of the group. Why does that involve individuals evolving with the ability to harm the group? It's contradictory. You are right in that evolution would preclude any choice.

Magellan

[Tassman]

No, no, no.
The evolutionary model of morals = Survival of the group. Why does that involve individuals evolving with the ability to harm the group? It's contradictory. You are right in that evolution would preclude any choice.

Magellan

It is not contradictory. Some become socio-paths and try to harm the group but you missed shunya’s point that “Survival of the species is only dependent on the majority making good choices”. Our choices are based on ‘evolved instincts, i.e. we are predisposed to behave in a certain way. Certainly some mothers set out to harm their children, but this does not invalidate the deeply ingrained nurturing instinct of the vast majority.

[shunyadragon]

No, no, no.

confusing.

The evolutionary model of morals = Survival of the group.

OK

Why does that involve individuals evolving with the ability to harm the group? It's contradictory.

That is the way the natural world is, some choices are obviously made, some individuals can make bad choices that harm the group, most individuals will make good decisions that benefit the group and the group survives.

You are right in that evolution would preclude any choice.

Magellan

You are misreading my post, evolution would not preclude any choice, The choice of individuals, good or bad, would not determine the morals and ethics of the group. The positive collective decisions of the all the individuals would determine the survival of the group

[magellan004]

It is not contradictory. Some become socio-paths and try to harm the group but you missed shunya’s point that “Survival of the species is only dependent on the majority making good choices”. Our choices are based on ‘evolved instincts, i.e. we are predisposed to behave in a certain way. Certainly some mothers set out to harm their children, but this does not invalidate the deeply ingrained nurturing instinct of the vast majority.

Having your cake and eating it too. Morals (choice, ability to do wrong) 'are a result of evolution'. Why does the ability to harm the group help the group?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

Having your cake and eating it too. Morals (choice, ability to do wrong) 'are a result of evolution'. Why does the ability to harm the group help the group?

Magellan

It does not help the group. As long as it is the minority it does not significantly harm the group. Making choices, and the ability of individuals to do right or wrong is simply the natural reality of human behavior.

[magellan004]

It does not help the group. As long as it is the minority it does not significantly harm the group. Making choices, and the ability of individuals to do right or wrong is simply the natural reality of human behavior.

I'll spell it out.
Evolution = The ability to harm the group is the result of a process which only allows behavior which helps the group.

Can you at least acknowledge there is something fishy with the evolution - morals argument?

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

I'll spell it out.
Evolution = The ability to harm the group is the result of a process which only allows behavior which helps the group.

Can you at least acknowledge there is something fishy with the evolution - morals argument?

Magellan

No, nothing fishy, its simply the real human world of morality and ethics, regardless of whether God exists or not. Your actually touching on another problem, 'Does God 'allow' evil, not just right or wrong decisions, but really evil bad things and decisions where multitudes of innocents suffer and perish?'

The process of evolution does not 'allow' things, this is an anthropomorphic view like the statement above. In evolution there will always be a genetic diversity that results in a range of physical and behavioral characteristics in a population, and not really described as 'good' nor 'bad.' The dominance of the 'more successful' physical and behavioral characteristics will lead to the survival of the species.

[pancreasman]

Isn't this also a confusion between the statistical behaviour of populations and the behaviour of individuals? Social populations will evolve in such a way that majority behaviour will be advantageous to group survival but this does not preclude individuals acting in anti-social ways.

[Tassman]

Having your cake and eating it too. Morals (choice, ability to do wrong) 'are a result of evolution'. Why does the ability to harm the group help the group?
Magellan

The instincts upon which we base our moral code are the result of evolution and are certainly resisted by some, e.g. a minority of mothers will harm their children despite the evolved instinct of the majority to nurture them.

The group recognizes that sociopathic aberrations occur and provides penalties via legislation - by fining them, incarcerating them or, in some instances, executing them - in order to safeguard the cohesion of the community at large

[Tassman]

I'll spell it out.

Evolution = The ability to harm the group is the result of a process which only allows behavior which helps the group.

Can you at least acknowledge there is something fishy with the evolution - morals argument?

Magellan

No, nothing “fishy” – just your misunderstanding! Evolution does not automatically result in a “process which only allows behavior which helps the group”; just as evolution does not always result in physically or mentally ‘normal’ babies being born. So while evolutionary natural-selection has resulted in the instinctive tendency towards cooperative behavior among the majority it is not universal; there will always be anti-social personalities. And society will protect itself from such destructive behaviors by imposing penalties or removing them from society altogether.

Isn't this also a confusion between the statistical behaviour of populations and the behaviour of individuals? Social populations will evolve in such a way that majority behaviour will be advantageous to group survival but this does not preclude individuals acting in anti-social ways.

Precisely! This is where Magellan seems to be getting confused.

[magellan004]

No, nothing “fishy” – just your misunderstanding! Evolution does not automatically result in a “process which only allows behavior which helps the group”; just as evolution does not always result in physically or mentally ‘normal’ babies being born. So while evolutionary natural-selection has resulted in the instinctive tendency towards cooperative behavior among the majority it is not universal; there will always be anti-social personalities. And society will protect itself from such destructive behaviors by imposing penalties or removing them from society altogether.
Precisely! This is where Magellan seems to be getting confused.

So while evolutionary natural-selection has resulted in the instinctive tendency towards cooperative behavior among the majority it is not universal; there will always be anti-social personalities.
Why? Through what mechanism?

You are arguing that characters that harm the group are selected for. There is no evolution process or mechanism that says that.
Even if you were to argue the bizarre case that 'Morally bad behavior is due to mutation of cells' that still doesn't explain your assertion that such mutations are selected for.

Magellan

[shunyadragon]

So while evolutionary natural-selection has resulted in the instinctive tendency towards cooperative behavior among the majority it is not universal; there will always be anti-social personalities.
Why? Through what mechanism?

That has been explained by Pancreasman, Tassman and myself already. The nature of evolution is 'natural selection through genetic diversity, and yes there is obviously nothing that is universalsally one way or another as far as physical nor behavioral characteristics as simply the witness in the history of evolution, and the nature of life as seen today.

You are arguing that characters that harm the group are selected for. There is no evolution process or mechanism that says that.

No, confusion on your part, no one has claimed that.

Even if you were to argue the bizarre case that 'Morally bad behavior is due to mutation of cells' that still doesn't explain your assertion that such mutations are selected for.

Magellan

No one has argued this puzzling bizarre case you are referring to. Please cite properly and respond to accurate citations.

[jlowder]

How many atheists believe in objective morality, vs. how many believe that morality is subjective?

I was interested to see a post by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog, The “objective morality” gotcha, in which he seems to endorse the concept of objective morality:. So it was interesting to read someone who is a reasonably notable Internet atheist endorsing some concept of objective morals.

I've posted a reply to Myers here:

http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/2...ent-reply.html