The Problem of Morals

[Nakosis]

No, there is no one unique species because different members could survive and there would still be a species.

Yes, humans are still in the race despite our greater reliance on feelings. As long as we adapt and survive this purpose is fulfilled.
It not really relevant which species survives as long as we all make the best choices to ensure survival.

 

[Nakosis]

No, to simple. There are more factors than just survival as such. Start with the 4 Fs in biology.

Which of these Fs are not related to survival?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which of these Fs are not related to survival?

But I can survuíve by fighting and killing you and so in reverse and the human species survives in both cases. The problem is that evolution takes in part places at the level of the individual and not just the species.
Or I could feed and you don't and so in reverse and the same with the F I won't use.

In short you are doing a classical one. Assuming that survival of all individuals are required for the survival of the species. There are other problems as pointed out by @Kooky

 

[Nakosis]

But I can survuíve by fighting and killing you and so in reverse and the human species survives in both cases. The problem is that evolution takes in part places at the level of the individual and not just the species.
Or I could feed and you don't and so in reverse and the same with the F I won't use.

In short you are doing a classical one. Assuming that survival of all individuals are required for the survival of the species. There are other problems as pointed out by @Kooky

That's your assumption.
What I'm saying is that the more that survive the greater chance that life continues. Individual survival is an emotional choice.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's your assumption.
What I'm saying is that the more that survive the greater chance that life continues. Individual survival is an emotional choice.

No, because there is such a thing as overpopulation. You really has to study biology in the basics.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but you have not demonstrated why it is logically necessary to want life to exist in the first place.

And you cannot do that because you cannot arrive at a moral principle from a simple statement of fact; for life to be a moral principle, you must first conclude that life is a good thing; and that is a moral judgement, which cannot be derived from description and claims to facticity.

Of course, I'm not making moral based claims. There is no need to want life to survive. We can see, The purpose of survival is how we came to exist. What we want is not relevant

EDIT: Of course, as Mikkel has already pointed out, starting at "survival of life" is somewhat of a no-starter to begin with, because both of these terms are so broad in scope that they are largely impractical to be point of near-uselessness as far as moral principles are concerned; but this is still one step removed from your fundamental conundrum known as the Is-Ought Dichotomy, which you cannot get out of simply by adding more "science".

I agree, moral principles are not a necessary answer which is the point of this thread.

 

[Nakosis]

No, because there is such a thing as overpopulation. You really has to study biology in the basics.

Overpopulation is only a problem when the population growth becomes unsustainable. Then we can use science to determine the maximum stainable population to ensure the survival of the species. To do otherwise would obviously cause a decline in population.

 

[Nakosis]

Morally I'm guided by virtues. I always try to be more logical, and less guided by my feelings. Feeling are a result, an effect. If the feelings are bad then I must consider what I'm doing wrong. If the feelings are good then that is a reward for having done well. The worst thing I can do is be guided by feelings over logic. Nevertheless I try to channel my feelings into the moral principles I accept; the virtues.

I can see that a dispassionate scientific process would be beneficial to outcomes. But to lack true and accurate moral principles is very damaging.

Damaging to your emotional state?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Overpopulation is only a problem when the population growth becomes unsustainable. Then we can use science to determine the maximum stainable population to ensure the survival of the species. To do otherwise would obviously cause a decline in population.

So more people with fewer resources are better than fewer, but enough with more individual resources? That is not the only problem there in your assumption of more is better.

 

[firedragon]

The question of morals is pretty complex, but I believe the biggest factor involved is feelings.
I know there are cultural factors, experiential factors, theological factors, still I think it mostly boils down to what you feel is right or wrong. These other factors contribute to what you feel is right or wrong.

Some claim morals is not something which "science" can deal with, and I generally agree.

Feelings are a feedback systems developed by humans through evolution. A system that has worked well enough to allow our survival still a very imprecise system. Fear, anger, love, lust etc... are triggered by a subconscious process, which is not a rational process. We feel what we feel but can't rationalize why we feel this way. We can consciously try to justify after the fact of experiencing what we feel.

Science would be the ideal way to make choices, However, our pesky feelings get in the way.

So, instead of increasing the likelihood of making correct choices, we rely on our feelings to make value judgements. Those values are generally not the best choices for us but the choices that will provide the desired feeling.

We humans are addicted to our feelings however, science can not not engage with the system of morals or human values since it is a mediocre system lacking any precision.

It's like telling a junkie that getting high is bad for them but the high is more important to the junkie than making the better choice.

In an atheistic worldview, how would you understand feelings? What are feelings?

 

[Nakosis]

I seem to recall a test of moral dilemmas that involves brain scans to study the subjects. No subject was purely rational as where we map rationally in the brain. Some were purely emotional and other a combination of emotional and rational.
That fits with what was observed over 2000+ years ago:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Notice measure here is about what subjectively matters as far as we can tell.

Sure, man is the measure of all things for their own emotional benefit. I'm not saying this hasn't worked sufficient enough for survival just it's a flawed system. Relying on science could avoid these flaws.

 

[Nakosis]

In an atheistic worldview, how would you understand feelings? What are feelings?

Feelings are biochemical responses developed through evolution as a means for feedback to support survival.

 

[firedragon]

Feelings are biochemical responses developed through evolution as a means for feedback to support survival.

Do you think each human being has evolved to have different feelings?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Feelings are biochemical responses developed through evolution as a means for feedback to support survival.

You do know that survival is not the "purpose" of evolution?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think each human being has evolved to have different feelings?

Well, yes, in a sense because we are variation without a correct core version of perfect human DNA.

 

[Nakosis]

I guess if you define morality as being utilitarianism, then science can help maximise decisions in this regard.

Of course many people don't think morality should be defined by utilitarianism...

I don't either. Morals/morality is a system which lacks precession. The problem I see with utilitarianism is the promotion of happiness since it would be impossible to make a consistent evaluation of how to promote happiness. What makes us happy is likely to change over the years. Individual vs majority happiness is also very messy IMO.

Very often what promote survival is the opposite of what makes us happy. My point is that emotional states is not a reliable way to make good choices.

 

[Nakosis]

You do know that survival is not the "purpose" of evolution?

I don't see evolution as having a purpose, do you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't either. Morals/morality is a system which lacks precession. The problem I see with utilitarianism is the promotion of happiness since it would be impossible to make a consistent evaluation of how to promote happiness. What makes us happy is likely to change over the years. Individual vs majority happiness is also very messy IMO.

Very often what promote survival is the opposite of what makes us happy. My point is that emotional states is not a reliable way to make good choices.

Please show the good choices only using empirical external observation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't see evolution as having a purpose, do you?

Well, evolution is not about survival unless the findings has changed. It is about reproduction of the fittest gene. That is something else.

 

[firedragon]

Well, yes, in a sense because we are variation without a correct core version of perfect human DNA.

Do you think different DNA dictates different feelings?