Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Materialism and Moral Clarity

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Its been fascinating to read the discussion started by Barry Arrington that seems to expose some critical holes in the moral thinking of materialism. The discussion seems to range from justifying the existence of pornography to denigrating religious organizations that proselytize as they offer help and assistance to those in need. And, as Barry pointed out, the discussion is 41 posts in (actually as of now 53 posts), and still no materialist has condemned the views of the poster called Seversky on moral grounds. Perhaps having to decide between helping women in poverty by buying pornography or by funding a religious charity is too morally complex a choice for clarity for a materialist, so I want to offer an alternative.

So, here’s a simple thought experiment for any of the materialists (or philosophical naturalists, or atheists) among our number here at Uncommon Descent. Perhaps this simple thought experiment can bring some clarity to moral questions from a materialist persepctive.

Here goes: You’re in a large city and walk up to a a busy street corner. Heavy traffic is whizzing by in both directions on the street you need to cross. As you prepare to cross, you notice next to you a smallish, frail, elderly woman, carrying some shopping bags, who also needs to cross the street, but is quite obviously nervous and frightened of the attempt. You now have 3 options: 1) you can ignore her completely and just go about your business; 2)you can push her into the traffic; 3) you can assist her to get safely across the street. The moral question is, what is the right thing to do and why is it the right thing to do (that is to say, how can we know that is the right thing to do)?

Comments
Phinehas, I don't really have an answer. Perhaps some traits trump personal fulfillment in reproduction. As I said, even though life is the imperative under the Darwinian system, it is a mistake to think that means no more than reproduction, no matter how nasty, brutish and short. If all it meant was reproduction at any cost, we would not be able to live fulfilled lives.avocationist
October 9, 2009
October
10
Oct
9
09
2009
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
@avocationist
I was pointing out that in the Darwinian system, life is the one imperative, and that includes life in every sort of success. So it is not strange for the desire to help others to have evolved, and for a moral system to evolve.
Yes, but in the Darwinian system our intellect has also evolved to the point where we recognize the "imperative" and "desire" and "moral system" for what they really are: random occurrences that were selected for their benefit to our fitness. So, as enlightened believers in the Darwinian system, what do we do when we realize that our particular fitness would be better served by operating counter to those desires and morals? What imperative do I follow, given the situation I've described in my previous post? And why?Phinehas
October 8, 2009
October
10
Oct
8
08
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Upright Biped, "The drive to survive? I have wondered; what are the exact coordinates within the genome that causes the chemical reactions formerly known as living organisms to wish to persist, as oppossed to seeking stasis as the stately rocks, or heat traveling to cold?" Ha, ha, I cannot answer that as I don't believe that to be the case. I play devil's advocate here at times when I think the Other Side is being misunderstood. In this case, I am referring to more than the drive to survive in an individual. I was pointing out that in the Darwinian system, life is the one imperative, and that includes life in every sort of success. So it is not strange for the desire to help others to have evolved, and for a moral system to evolve. But I agree with your points because I don't think matter is an adequate explanation for these drives. And I have noted that many of the Darwinists here have seemed strangely incurious about the origin of their moral sense. This is truly an interesting question.avocationist
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT
O'Leary at 62 "My question is whether Darwinists have actually admitted and disowned the racism (and the consequent eugenics)." I have a tough time understanding what you want from whom. If by Darwinists, you mean people who think evolution is a largely correct scientific idea then I am one. So in that case I am not sure what you want me to do. I am not a racist and never have been. Is that enough? What else do I have to do? I also think other correct scientific theories were first discovered by racists. Do I need to disown their racism as well? Can I do this all together or do I need to disown each seperately? If by Darinist you mean followers of the prophet Charles Darwin, I don't think they have disowned his racism because I don't think they exist.TempHut
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
From a biological perspective, I am a failure as a human being. I have a fitness of zero, primarily because my sentimental gene keeps screwing over my selfish gene. When you get down to the cold, hard scientific facts of the situation, I exist to further my genes. Any other "purpose" to my life is illusory, is it not? To be sure, over many generations, evolution has also given me feelings for my family, but these exist to assist in furthering my genes. In my particular case, however, those feelings end up being counter-productive to the purpose for which they were originally intended. You see, I found out a number of years ago that my wife has poor egg quality and that it is nearly impossible that we will conceive children of our own. If it were not for the sentimentality with which evolution has burdened me, this information might have prompted me to leave my wife and seek out a more fertile mate in order to propagate my genes. It gets worse. For sentimental reasons, we adopted a young boy. His blond hair and boisterous chemistry play havok with my own sentimental chemistry so that, even though I know that I am investing energy in propagating someone else's genes instead of my own, I can't seem to stop myself. So, now I have quite the conundrum. Though my sentimental gene is dragging down my fitness, my intellectual gene has evolved to the point that I recognize that my sentimental gene is illusory--or at least that it is not functioning in the way that it should. Given that my primary purpose is to reproduce my genes, shouldn't I ignore this sentimentality and leave my wife and child? Or maybe I shouldn't ignore it, because my sentimental gene has become detrimental and should be culled from the gene pool as a result? On the other hand, that would also cull out the intellectual gene that allows me to see my sentimentality for what it is. Naturalistic morality is just so confusing for me. Can someone give me a hand here?Phinehas
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Clive Hayden, there is a similar big problem here in Canada with "human rights" commissions. Some employees and contractors were going on the Internet, pretending to be Nazis, to entrap other citizens. There is no significant Nazi threat in Canada. Nazis here are assumed to be the buffoons of Hogan's Heroes, if anyone even remembers the show, let alone the Nazis. In one case, the CHRC "snitches" abused a private citizen's e-mail address. Meanwhile, there are "death to the Jews" marches in the streets of Toronto, and ... crickets chirp, as far as the establishment is concerned. I have linked to this outrage at the Post-Darwinist frequently. This situation is analogous to the NSF problem: The fact that some people are allowed to get away with outrages in a publicly funded organization tells you something about the character of the organization. Usually, the organization needs a change of leadership, at least in my experience. Like,why did NSF people think they could be surfing porn at WORK - and billing the office? Incredible. If they don't have anything to do that would interfere with their porn plans, maybe either their positions or the whole organization should not exist.O'Leary
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Mark Frank,
Because 7 employees out of 1200 have been found guilty of misconduct related to pornography?
Of course it depends on which 7, and what positions they hold, what other poor decisions they've made, how much money and time and resources have been lost, etc., if it is the upper echelons and not the functionaries and janitors, then yes, I think we have a right to discredit them.Clive Hayden
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
Correction to #64 That should read: Because 7 employees out of 1200 have been found guilty of misconduct related to pornography? On this basis there would be very many institutions including many churches that have lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority.Mark Frank
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
#61 But can we all agree that the underlying incident that is the basis for this discussion shows that the NSF has lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority? Because 7 employees out of 1200 have been found guilty of misconduct related to pornography? On this basis there would be very few institutions including many churches that have lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority.Mark Frank
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
Temphut at 62, My question is whether Darwinists have actually admitted and disowned the racism (and the consequent eugenics). I don't need anyone to explain to me that it isn't true. It's the buckets of whitewash that concern me, not the condemned, rotting structure.O'Leary
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Oleary @ 62 Darwin was almost certainly a racist by modern standards and would have a tough time keeping any job if he were alive in 2009 and shared his views publically. The statment about gorillas is simply false and can be shown so with modern genetics. Not sure what else you want me to say. A wrong view held by Charles Darwin is a wrong view. What is your overall argument about "Darwinists" not being able to help poorly behaved kids? Kids misbehave because Darwin was a racist? Kids misbehave because the Theory of Evolution (like general relativity or quantum mechanics) is not a good guide to child rearing?TempHut
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
I vote for charity -- for Seversky. I whole-heartily defend his freedom not to give money to organizations whose views he doesn't share. But can we all agree that the underlying incident that is the basis for this discussion shows that the NSF has lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority? Oh, and would Seversky defend our freedom not to give money to organizations whose views we don't share i.e. like the NSF and a host of other tax-supported institutions?tribune7
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Temphut at 50, You quoted me and added, “Some of that kid’s problems may be easy to resolve, some may not be. We do what we can. But we better keep doing it. And Darwin and his followers may not be much of a help.” True, though you could replace Darwin with Newton, Einstein or any other sucessful scientist." To the best of my knowledge, neither Newton nor Einstein wrote a long racist tract, as Darwin did (the Descent of Man). Claiming that black people are closer to gorillas than white people is not the best way to make peace in the schoolyard in my experience. I'd like to know if, at any point, Darwinists have ever simply disowned the racism, instead of covering it up or misrepresenting it as not really Darwin's views, to protect their prophet.O'Leary
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
"This is not so, because even in a materialist, Darwinian universe there is actually one overriding imperative, and that imperative is Life" The drive to survive? I have wondered; what are the exact coordinates within the genome that causes the chemical reactions formerly known as living organisms to wish to persist, as oppossed to seeking stasis as the stately rocks, or heat traveling to cold? If materialism is true, and is to explain all phenomena, then certainly a chemical cause must exist, no? Surely it can be described given that its origin is no longer in question. And what about this "wish" itself? Shall we call it something else? A drive? A need? An instinct? And if so, an instinct from what? A drive created by our chemicals; an intense need perpetuated as a byproduct carbon perhaps?Upright BiPed
October 7, 2009
October
10
Oct
7
07
2009
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT
DonaldM, "What I am saying is that if our moral sense is indeed the end result of a Darwinian process as I described earlier, then regardless of the moral choice we make, we are merely stating our own personal preference because we’d have no way of really saying “this is right” or “this is wrong” beyond our preference." This is not so, because even in a materialist, Darwinian universe there is actually one overriding imperative, and that imperative is Life. That which supports life stays and evolves. And life is not just about being nasty, brutish and short. It is about being abundant, safe, emotionally sound. At the same time, as Caminintx said, "how would any morality derived from said personality be any different from the believer’s personal preference?" I'd like to think that we don't have a "because I said so" moral system, but rather that morality is a fundament of reality, of how reality really is, and not a whim of God. In other words, I think our moral sense derives from the innate goodness of the divinity, from whom all existence flows.avocationist
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT
To DonaldM: As a few of the above posts suggest, its pretty simple to see how morality can evolve (eg: species that eat their babies dont get to propogate). So, again, what do you propose in its place ? I think its pretty clear from your posts what you are getting at but it would be better if you could just come right out and say it.Graham
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Clive Hayden, #51
There are answers to this in Theology, since, in Theology, you meet a personality, but there are no answers in biology or evolutionary psychology to this dilemma. Does evolution determine what is right? Or does it adhere to a transcendental and more fundamental morality than anything it produces?
Even if you think Euthyphro's dilemma has been resolved (and I would love to see this explanation), unless you can prove the existence of the deity behind the theology, how would any morality derived from said personality be any different from the believer's personal preference? If an objective morality does exist independant of any deity, why wouldn't evolved organisms be able to devine these objective morals?camanintx
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
@~24
DonaldM
Monastyrski I have a feeling where DonaldM wants this to go: how can you “know” it’s right to help the old lady when you don’t believe in “objective morality”. Right, DonaldM?
Acutally, no. The question can be answered whether one does or doesn’t accept the notion of objective morality (OM).
DonaldM@~39 On the Darwinian view our moral sense is, by definition, the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter of energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. Given that origin, we have no basis to say “this option is right” or “this option is wrong”. We can state a preference, but that is all.
I think you got nailed there.
DonaldM@~46 But, we behave as if we truly believe innately that certain things are always right for everyone in all times and places, and likewise certain things are always wrong for all people in all times and places.
It's possible to imagine such things but it requires some work (eg the person who rapes children or murders people for fun), but imperfect Darwinian processes do not favor those examples. Maybe they could if the situation were radically different, but I don't want to be there. Generally we don't want to murder people, but even if we did, our intellect allows us to see the advantages of cooperation and the disadvantages of living in a world were we may murder others but everybody else may want to murder us: the numbers just don't work out. The people that do like to murder people tend to be shunned or even killed by the people who don't wish to be murdered, which in Darwinian terms isn't so great.steve_h
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Graham is right. Rather than just saying it is difficult to see how a Darwinian process could produce an innate sense of morals, you need to go on and say what you think could produce such an innate sense. Aside from this you have not explained at all why a Darwinian process could not produce it. Simply using words like "blind" and "purposeless" doesn't help at all. Why shouldn't a purposeless process produce an innate sense of morals? The fact that there is some very interesting research coming out now indicating moral judgments in other animals (such as dogs and coyotes) does suggest that a "purposeless" process could well produce a moral sense. And earlier on you posit another process that might produce a moral sense - ie "Intelligent Design" but give absolutely no indication as to how this process might produce such an outcome.zeroseven
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
To DonaldM: ... suggests to me that something far more is at work. Why dont you just come clean ? Tell us all what you think it is.Graham
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Isn't theology "just a theory"?Larry Tanner
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
camanintx,
Since the argument for an objective moral standard is difficult to make, even for creationists (read Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue), how is this problem unique to Darwinian processes?
There are answers to this in Theology, since, in Theology, you meet a personality, but there are no answers in biology or evolutionary psychology to this dilemma. Does evolution determine what is right? Or does it adhere to a transcendental and more fundamental morality than anything it produces?Clive Hayden
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
"Some of that kid’s problems may be easy to resolve, some may not be. We do what we can. But we better keep doing it. And Darwin and his followers may not be much of a help." True, though you could replace Darwin with Newton, Einstein or any other sucessful scientist.TempHut
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
DonaldM, #46
What I am saying is that if our moral sense is indeed the end result of a Darwinian process as I described earlier, then regardless of the moral choice we make, we are merely stating our own personal preference because we’d have no way of really saying “this is right” or “this is wrong” beyond our preference.
Since the argument for an objective moral standard is difficult to make, even for creationists (read Plato's Euthyphro dialogue), how is this problem unique to Darwinian processes?camanintx
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
DonaldM at 46, in my experience, all normal humans believe this. Having looked after many children, I have heard the cry "Stop shoving! Take your turn!!" any number of times. I doubt you'd hear the same ideas in a wolf pack. True, wolves take their turn at a kill, but it is all about who's on top and who's not. Children effortlessly learn (from parents and guardians, in part) a sense of priority based on mathematical precision, not on Darwinian fitness. Whence its origin? Indeed, one way to identify a seriously troubled child is that he has difficulty understanding this principle. For example, he shoves a small girl to the ground and doesn't understand why everyone else is horrified by what he has done. He doesn't understand that he has behaved like a wild animal, not a human being in a civil society. Some of that kid's problems may be easy to resolve, some may not be. We do what we can. But we better keep doing it. And Darwin and his followers may not be much of a help. That's why I am here and not somewhere else.O'Leary
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Oleary at 16 "If we are strict neo-Darwinists, we might believe in the “selfish gene” and help only our own kin." Luckily neo-Darwinists (as well as Biblical creationists) believe every person is their own kin.TempHut
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Larry
But why does the origin of the moral sense take away your ability to say “this option is right” or “this option is wrong”? If you have a moral sense, can you not say “this option is right” or “this option is wrong”? It’s important to learn about the origins of the moral sense, but I fail to see what these origins have to do with making moral choices now and in the future.
I'm not saying that the origin of our moral sense takes away our ability to make a moral choice. What I am saying is that if our moral sense is indeed the end result of a Darwinian process as I described earlier, then regardless of the moral choice we make, we are merely stating our own personal preference because we'd have no way of really saying "this is right" or "this is wrong" beyond our preference. Indeed, on Darwinism, any moral choice is itself the end result of the Darwinian process...that is to say the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter and energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. How then to know what really is right or wrong? That's the point. But, we behave as if we truly believe innately that certain things are always right for everyone in all times and places, and likewise certain things are always wrong for all people in all times and places. Its difficult to see how a Darwinian process would produce such an innate sense and suggests to me that something far more is at work.DonaldM
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Yeah, sometimes the bad guys win. People frequently act out of fear, greed or stupidity. But, overall, I think the human race is slowly "getting it". Most of us don't burn witches anymore, or own slaves, woman are even allowed to vote in lots of countries. Those activities were supported AND opposed by people of faith. I'm sure you think, like me, that the Crusaders had a perverted reading of the Holy scriptures but, like Hitler, they probably thought they were right. I find it too difficult to sort out the various interpretations of which absolute moral codes are the right ones. Some Christians think homosexuality is fine, some think it's an abomination. Some Christians think women should be priests, some don't. During the middles ages some Christians killed other Christians because the first group decided the second group were heretics. I wish I could back a move to impose a set of premises in hopes that many of the ills of the world would be solved. It just never seems to work so I put my "faith" into education and setting a good example. And supporting the peace makers and bridge builders. :-) It doesn't work all the time either. But I'd rather light a lamp than curse the darkness. And I bet you feel exactly the same way! :-)ellazimm
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
@39
On the Darwinian view our moral sense is, by definition, the end result of the blind, purposeless forces of matter of energy evolving over eons of time through chance and/or necessity. Given that origin, we have no basis to say “this option is right” or “this option is wrong”. We can state a preference, but that is all.
But why does the origin of the moral sense take away your ability to say “this option is right” or “this option is wrong”? If you have a moral sense, can you not say “this option is right” or “this option is wrong”? It's important to learn about the origins of the moral sense, but I fail to see what these origins have to do with making moral choices now and in the future.Larry Tanner
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
And if we both don't get there? Why is it that your coalition had the moral authority to wage war and stop hitler? Or is moral authority not an issue, and it's really just about who has the better army? If Hitler had the better army, and won out, and his moral authority won the day, would you today be counting "exterminate the Jews" and teaching your children that Jews and blacks were subhumans be an acceptable "place where we both got to"? Moral authority by mutual agreement can still rationalize anything.William J. Murray
October 6, 2009
October
10
Oct
6
06
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply