Is Atheism Compatible with Natural Rights?

[DanP]

Which might be true if it were the high-status and most powerful who were behaving compassionately. But it seems that this 'live and let live' and 'all creatures great and small' attitude transcends status levels. Often it is the poorest who are compassionate.

Compassion doesn't equate self sacrifice. It's not enough to be "compassionate", it has to be a hit in resources. The poorest, more often than not, have nothing to give, nothing to loose.

Besides, we would have to quantify statistically from where the most resources come for helping the persons in need. My guess is that the significant fraction comes from persons in power and of significant status.

Live and let live is not a form of altruism. It's at most neutrality, don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

 

[apeiron]

Some say that there is a basis for morality in evolution, but so far none has been able to produce any proof.

Or perhaps it is a complex question with plenty of evidence which you have not been following particularly closely.

For instance, there is clear evidence for a neural basis to variations in behaviour.

What makes people act with kindness to a stranger they never expect to meet again? Why are some people more generous than others? Neuroeconomist Paul J. Zak of Claremont Graduate University has new research connecting oxytocin to trust and generosity.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071107074321.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

Live and let live is not a form of altruism. It's at most neutrality, don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

In an world where it is easy to see everyone around you as threats and chase them away just on principle, LaLL would be much more than neutral; it would be an active attempt to push back to achieve some compassion.

 

[DanP]

For instance, there is clear evidence for a neural basis to variations in behaviour.

Yes. There is. Evolutionary psychologists got it right. Die hard social psychologists are wrong IMO, assigning too much in society and seeking too few in individual. (for the record, so is a die hard evolutionary psych)

Even explanations for altruism can be fit nicely in a evolutionary context. Behavioral endocrinology is taught at a lot of universities. Oxytocin might make a being more generous, testosterone may fuel status seeking behaviors and whatever else. It doesn't mean either of those make you "moral" or "immoral".

There is no proof that "morality" , whatever can be understand by that, for behaviors shift a lot in and out of what is considered "moral" at a place in space and time, is evolved.

I believe that our evolved behaviors are amoral, in the sense that social identity absent, they carry no moral load. It is IMO social constructs like the state organization, inter group commercial trade, law enforcement and military which make this world safer today then it was in the past. Not an evolved morality.

I believe this quote can be assigned to Robert Wright, and it is IMO pretty relevant to our evolved nature

“One of the reasons I don't want to bomb the Japanese is that they built my minivan.”

We kill each other with the same natural grace we are able to exhibit when cooperating with each other.

 

[DanP]

In an world where it is easy to see everyone around you as threats and chase them away just on principle, LaLL would be much more than neutral; it would be an active attempt to push back to achieve some compassion.

Hence a form of aggression ?

 

[DaveC426913]

Hence a form of aggression ?

Is this an attempt to be clever?

 

[apeiron]

Yes. There is. Evolutionary psychologists got it right. Die hard social psychologists are wrong IMO, assigning too much in society and seeking too few in individual. (for the record, so is a die hard evolutionary psych)

Without citations, it is impossible to know what you are talking about. This comment covers a few thousand authors.

There is no proof that "morality" , whatever can be understand by that, for behaviors shift a lot in and out of what is considered "moral" at a place in space and time, is evolved.

That is not something you have been able to substantiate.

My argument here is that moral behaviour = evolutionarily fit behaviour. And fit behaviour is about individuals striking a dynamic balance between locally competitive and globally co-operative actions. That is why social animals have large brains - to make complex and deep choices that weigh these two equally necessary drives. Then furthermore, humans have both a sociocultural and biological legacy of evolution. So the same pursuit of balance/fitness spread across two levels of mechanism (genetic and memetic your friend Dawkins would call it).

So it is a fairly detailed position I take. I'm not getting much sense of complexity or nuance in anything you've been saying so far.

I believe that our evolved behaviors are amoral, in the sense that social identity absent, they carry no moral load. It is IMO social constructs like the state organization, inter group commercial trade, law enforcement and military which make this world safer today then it was in the past. Not an evolved morality.

If you don't believe that socially constructed behaviour is subject to standard evolutionary fitness constraints then perhaps you've never studied cultural anthropology?

 

[DanP]

That is not something you have been able to substantiate.

Substantiate what ? My claim that moral behavior is not evolved ? There is no proof so far it is evolved. Only empty speech. Thats substance enough.

If you are aware of any proof that moral behavior is evolved, please present it, I would be interested to see it.

Please do not present more articles which link hormones to behaviors, we all know that's true, but it has 0 to do with "morale".

Works like "The moral life of babies" are interesting, however far far away from being conclusive in any way. If anything, they show a drive toward cooperation, but cooperative behavior is not moral. Its amoral.

Then furthermore, humans have both a sociocultural and biological legacy of evolution. So the same pursuit of balance/fitness spread across two levels of mechanism (genetic and memetic your friend Dawkins would call it).

Same Dawkins who said this:

Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature.

If you don't believe that socially constructed behaviour is subject to standard evolutionary fitness constraints then perhaps you've never studied cultural anthropology?

It's not that. It is clear that societies evolve, that they have a sociocultural evolution. But 0 of this information is transmitted genetically in humans. A newborn knows 0 about how morale changed in a certain society during the last 2000 years. He will learn , by social interaction, in the next years. He is born amoral. The Darwinian evolution didn't gave him any morale. Furthermore, he will get the morals of the place where he is raised. Raise him with Taliban and will get their morale, raise it in USA and will get westerners morale. Our biology carries no morale. Our social identity does.

 

[apeiron]

Please do not present more articles which link hormones to behaviors, we all know that's true, but it has 0 to do with "morale".

Morale? Or morals?

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for an evolutionary basis to striking a competitive~co-operative balance in human behaviour. both at a neurobiological level and a sociocultural one.

If you are making the unscientific presumption that human behaviour is not natural, not the result of selection, then perhaps you ought to supply examples of human behaviour which is not that of a highly social animal.

 

[DanP]

Morale? Or morals?

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for an evolutionary basis to striking a competitive~co-operative balance in human behaviour. both at a neurobiological level and a sociocultural one.

If you are making the unscientific presumption that human behaviour is not natural, not the result of selection, then perhaps you ought to supply examples of human behaviour which is not that of a highly social animal.

You are repeating yourself. Competitive - cooperative behaviors carry no moral load. I am asking for evidence regarding your claim that neurobiology allows you to explain a natural basis for moral behavior. You claim plenty of evidence. Please do present it.
.

 

[apeiron]

You are repeating yourself. Competitive - cooperative behaviors carry no moral load. I am asking for evidence regarding your claim that neurobiology allows you to explain a natural basis for moral behavior. You claim plenty of evidence. Please do present it.
.

I've already presented the oxytocin example as a data point. Now you explain by what concept of morality this is irrelevant.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Morale? Or morals?

Anyway, there is plenty of evidence for an evolutionary basis to striking a competitive~co-operative balance in human behaviour. both at a neurobiological level and a sociocultural one.

If you are making the unscientific presumption that human behaviour is not natural, not the result of selection, then perhaps you ought to supply examples of human behaviour which is not that of a highly social animal.

Doesnt human behvaior and morality change and "evolve" must faster than biological evolution? The morals of humanity "evolve" and mutate at a much quicker rate. There are moral acts from even 200 years ago that would make a modern person puke his guts out, where a person of that time would not even flinch. Is there a similar scenario in the animal kingdom? So which is the natural morality? Even if one was the natural morality, it could be supersceded.

 

[apeiron]

Doesnt human behvaior and morality change and "evolve" must faster than biological evolution?

My argument is precisely that morals do evolve - both at a slow biological rate, and at a fast sociocultural rate.

Of course, I wouldn't use the word "morals" normally as it is such a culturally-loaded notion. But the evolved basis of all human behaviour, no matter how varied, is usually easy to see.

All human behaviour will be judged in the long run for its functionality. Individuals might feel they are making arbitrary choices, but individuals usually have a poor appreciation of global systems constraints.

 

[DanP]

I've already presented the oxytocin example as a data point. Now you explain by what concept of morality this is irrelevant.

You are repeating yourself again. This example does not do anything to support your idea of natural morality. It doesn't consist proof of anything. Yeah, oxytocin may make you more generous. Some researchers claim that it also inlcreases envy and gloating:

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(09)00762-8/abstract

Ppl also forget that oxytocins main role is in the female reproduction and probably most effects not directly linked to reproduction are there to support parent offspring bonding and similar effects.

It's making way more sense than to believe this , then to postulate some almost magical innate moral sense supported by oxytocin.

But it doesn't really matter.

Because you try to look at 1 neurotransmitter from the hundreds of signaling molecules used in a human, which is a mistake, one should never forget it;s a ensemble, and based on this you claim "ample evidence" in neurobiology linking morale to biology.

It is not. Perhapes you should try now to find some evidence which can support your claims in the earnest ? Please, once again, no more links to oxytocin articles in newspapers.

 

[DanP]

My argument is precisely that morals do evolve - both at a slow biological rate, and at a fast sociocultural rate.

To claim this, you must first present evidence of any link whatsoever between morality and biology. A link which is not proven in any way whatsoever so far by science.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, no. We were talking about Rights and Morals. The human side of the equation.

An example of an atheist's code of morals might involve The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is a moral mandate that results in our good behaviour to others without resorting to some overarching judge and juror.

This post goes back to the beginning of the thread in response to mine, but I never clarified my position really. I referenced evolutionary psychology (which I know has criticisms. See Gary Marcus, Kluge)

But I guess my point is not whether morals come from genes or not, but that they come from nature. And since they come from nature, they can be studied with scientific method and that will tell you what the atheists natural rights are.

You claim that the code might involve a human-mind concept like the Golden Rule, but I'm claiming that the Golden Rule is a name we gave to something that developed in nature between us. A similar comment was made to yours:

None of the rules came from gods, they came from men in dresses who claimed they came from god.
A bunch of guys in long dresses just figured out a way to get indoor work with no heavy lifting - good luck to them.

I don't think the rules came from gods either, but I don't think the rules came specifically from men in dresses. I think the rules came out of nature (cosmology, society, geography, genetics). The men in the dresses took advantage of it, but their role was a natural one too, influenced by the same set of nature.

Much of morality is justification too, explaining impulsive behaviors or justifying pre-meditated behavior. Much of morals is social lubrication. Some morals are illusions of grandeur (going to the Elysian Fields and such for killing enough barbarians).

I think Dave's Manifesto would come from studying us as natural phenomena, not as humans who's abstract concepts are so concrete.

 

[apeiron]

To claim this, you must first present evidence of any link whatsoever between morality and biology. A link which is not proven in any way whatsoever so far by science.

There is no logic in your position as usual. Who could deny that "generosity" is standardly taken as a moral trait. And that a brain neuromodulator is shown to have a direct effect on the expression of this trait. Thus there is your link.

There are of course a ton of such data points. But pointless to discuss with you obviously.

 

[DanP]

There is no logic in your position as usual. Who could deny that "generosity" is standardly taken as a moral trait. And that a brain neuromodulator is shown to have a direct effect on the expression of this trait. Thus there is your link.

Yous see what you want to see. Since you postulate innate moral sense, its easy to see why you are so dead bent on oxytocin. But the effect in modulating generosity can be just a minor side effect of mother-offspring bonding mechanics. I am not saying that it is, but it can be. An effect which ensures that the offspring is well taken care off. A subtle power-play coming from a "selfish gene". Surely more parsimonious then postulating a innate moral sense. Besides, other research indicate that testosterone may increase status seeking , competitive , and dominant / aggressive behaviors. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with the same attitude like the one you have , but twisted in a mirror - darkly :P, would postulate "Look, males are born immoral ! there is evidence that testosterone increases status seeking and dominance behaviors"

Nature is amoral.

There are of course a ton of such data points. But pointless to discuss with you obviously.

Sure, there may be, but time and again, you fail to present *any* of them. All you do is repeat yourself ad-infinitum the oxytocin story and your claims.

 

[apeiron]

Yous see what you want to see. Since you postulate innate moral sense,.

Strawman. I merely take the mild position that there is a natural basis to morality. And that the story is complex. So any model would have to recognise at least both the neurobiological and the sociocultural levels at which fitness judgments and evolutionary learning are taking place.

Your claim that nature is amoral and that there is no biological basis whatsoever is clearly false.

Nature imposes the global constraint that things must work. So behaviour must be "moral" in the long run.

You may be trying to argue that locally, individuals have degrees of freedom. Constraints only constrain, they don't control. Therefore individuals can choose to do "otherwise". But this amorality would be a short-run freedom by definition. In the long-run, the larger context always judges.

 

[DanP]

I merely take the mild position that there is a natural basis to morality. And that the story is complex. So any model would have to recognise at least both the neurobiological and the sociocultural levels at which fitness judgments and evolutionary learning are taking place.

What you can do is to present the multitude of scientific proof you keep talking about and post after post you fail to do. I am interested to see it. Surely you understand that I cannot take your word for it, and that your position doesn't have any scientific value, lacking support.

If you love oxytocin so much, you can start with explaining why "generosity" cannot be a side effect of mother offspring bonding mechanics, designed to increase chances of survival of mammalian offspring, and why it rather points to some almost mystical innate moral "sense". Why it's not the simple effect of a "selfish gene" and is raher the effect of a "moral gene". And if it is the effect of a "moral gene", why does it also appears to promote aggressive behaviours against other competing social groups.

This is not a link to a study, but it will do as fine as a link to some newspaper article:

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/oxytocin .

For the record, I agree with your position on "at least both the neurobiological and the sociocultural levels|. But that's all. I need to see solid proof before buying into innate, biologic, morality.

 

[apeiron]

For the record, I agree with your position on "at least both the neurobiological and the sociocultural levels|. But that's all. I need to see solid proof before buying into innate, biologic, morality.

So if it isn't black, its got to be white? :zzz:

You are framing a ficticious debate. The choice is not a binary one between nature vs nurture, but about modern models of how complexity arises out of interactions.

A simple way to model the opposing forces behind social organisation in general, and thus moral behaviour in particular, is the dichotomy of competition~co-operation. Not a binary either/or, but a synergistic or complementary pairing.

And if this model is "true", then we should expect to find these same forces manifesting at every level of analysis. And right there in the neurobiology of the brain are modulatory systems that negotiate between the moment to moment choices of whether to compete or co-operate.

That is solid proof for the general interactionist model so far as I'm concerned. But you take a rigid reductionist view of human behaviour clearly, so subtle evidence cannot be evidence from your point of view.

If it isn't black and white and binary all over, it simply don't compute. Oxytocin, as a molecule, either "encodes" morality - or it doesn't.

But natural systems turn out not to be machines. They are more interestingly complex.

 

[apeiron]

This is not a link to a study, but it will do as fine as a link to some newspaper article:

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/oxytocin .

And your link says...

In years past, oxytocin had the reputation of being an "uncomplicated" hormone, with only a few well-defined activities related to birth and lactation. As has been the case with so many hormones, further research has demonstrated many subtle but profound influences of this little peptide, particularly in regards to its effects in the brain. Oxytocin has been implicated in setting a number of social behaviors in species ranging from mice to humans. For example, secretion or administration of oxytocin in humans appears to enhance trust and cooperation within socially-close groups, while promoting defensive aggression toward unrelated, competing groups.

So no-one expects a simple black and white mechanism of action. And in fact the interactions are complex enough as to give apparently confounding results. Although strengthening the sense of in-group of course, in complementary fashion, must strengthen the sense of out-group.

Mice that are unable to secrete oxytocin due to targeted disruptions of the oxytocin gene will mate, deliver their pups without apparent difficulty and display normal maternal behavior. However, they do show deficits in milk ejection and have subtle derangements in social behavior. It may be best to view oxytocin as a major facilitator of parturition and maternal behavior rather than a necessary component of these processes.

Hmm, seems that the actions of oxytocin are even less mechanistic than you suppose.

 

[DanP]

o no-one expects a simple black and white mechanism of action. And in fact the interactions are complex enough as to give apparently confounding results. Although strengthening the sense of in-group of course, in complementary fashion, must strengthen the sense of out-group

Yes , and ? How does this fit with your view that oxytocin represents some solid evidence of a innate moral sense ? You claimed that it cannot be anything else, it's clear evidence, for generosity is ... moral and modulated by oxytocin. Poor conclusion.

Now we see that it has also aggressive effects. We also know it modulates envy and gloating. Yes, Yea, I know those are moral too.

And your link says...Hmm, seems that the actions of oxytocin are even less mechanistic than you suppose.

Ok, and what ? Still the main role of the transmitter remains exactly the one I stated it is, reproduction and mother - offspring bonding mechanics.

Or what, we will end postulating sooner or later than mice too is born with a moral sense ? Just because it's a mammalian and it happens to secret oxytocin ?

Below are the question I asked . Responding with witty comments like the one quoted above doesn't do any good. What you have to explain is how innate morale fits here, and give a solid answer to each one. 1. if you love oxytocin so much, you can start with explaining why "generosity" cannot be a side effect of mother offspring bonding mechanics, designed to increase chances of survival of mammalian offspring, and why it rather points to some almost mystical innate moral "sense".

2. Why it's not the simple effect of a "selfish gene" and is raher the effect of a "moral gene". And if it is the effect of a "moral gene", why does it also appears to promote aggressive behaviors against other competing social groups.

 

[DanP]

So if it isn't black, its got to be white? :zzz:

You are framing a ficticious debate. The choice is not a binary one between nature vs nurture, but about modern models of how complexity arises out of interactions.

A simple way to model the opposing forces behind social organisation in general, and thus moral behaviour in particular, is the dichotomy of competition~co-operation. Not a binary either/or, but a synergistic or complementary pairing.

And if this model is "true", then we should expect to find these same forces manifesting at every level of analysis. And right there in the neurobiology of the brain are modulatory systems that negotiate between the moment to moment choices of whether to compete or co-operate.

That is solid proof for the general interactionist model so far as I'm concerned. But you take a rigid reductionist view of human behaviour clearly, so subtle evidence cannot be evidence from your point of view.

If it isn't black and white and binary all over, it simply don't compute. Oxytocin, as a molecule, either "encodes" morality - or it doesn't.

But natural systems turn out not to be machines. They are more interestingly complex.

More empty words. Please, can you just present the "multitude", "solid", "clear" mountain of evidence you claim to have regarding innate morality ? I keep asking you to do this, and you fail in every post to do.

 

[apeiron]

What you have to explain is how innate morale fits here, and give a solid answer to each one.

Back to the strawmen. Yawn.

 

[apeiron]

More empty words. Please, can you just present the "multitude", "solid", "clear" mountain of evidence you claim to have regarding innate morality ? I keep asking you to do this, and you fail in every post to do.

You made the rash claim that there was no evidence "whatsoever" for a neurobiological basis to moral behaviour. Therefore a single example is all that is needed. And you even provided a cite that oxytocin "appears to enhance trust and cooperation within socially-close groups". So hoisted by your own petard.

 

[DanP]

You made the rash claim that there was no evidence "whatsoever" for a neurobiological basis to moral behaviour. Therefore a single example is all that is needed. And you even provided a cite that oxytocin "appears to enhance trust and cooperation within socially-close groups". So hoisted by your own petard.

Yeah, really. Like I said, you see what you want to see. Petards, usually.

You see oxytocin enhancing trust, but you are utterly blind to see it also increases envy and gloating, and it increases aggressive behavior towards other groups.

this constitutes no proof for innate morel behavior. And if there is proof out there , it eludes you totally , for you are unable, time and again, to post the "multitude" of evidence you claim to have.

Btw, do mice also have a innate moral sense ? For their brains also use the transmitter oxytocin. Does it work well for them ? In their case, does oxtocin story present any proof toward a innate moral sense ?

 

[DanP]

Back to the strawmen. Yawn.

Sorry my friend. For 20 posts you claimed evidence, and For N posts you displayed nothing but empty rethorics, like usual.


Present your evidence, apeiron, please. Or at least do not claim you have it. Its geting old.

 

[apeiron]

You see oxytocin enhancing trust, but you are utterly blind to see it also increases envy and gloating, and it increases aggressive behavior towards other groups.

I don't think you read the research very carefully. Nor my comments about the subtlety of any link between neuromodulator and behaviour.

The researchers suggest oxytocin might promote the intensity of social emotions in general, leading to more generosity and trust in positive contexts and more envy and gloating in competitive situations.

Psychologist Beate Ditzen at the University of Zurich, who did not participate in this study, notes this work does show that oxytocin does not have solely positive effects in humans. She conjectures, however, that negative effects might still have pro-social effects in the long term—other studies hint that the threat of punishment may be key to cooperation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oxytocin-hormone

 

[DanP]

I don't think you read the research very carefully. Nor my comments about the subtlety of any link between neuromodulator and behaviour.

It appears to me that you did not. For you are the one who concluded a innate moral sense from the oxytocin story, and focused only on generosity to make your argument.

While it is clear from research that it modulates more behaviors. This research only proves what we all know from decades, that hormones and neuro-transmitters affects behaviors.

What is missing is proof for innate "morality"

 

[apeiron]

It appears to me that you did not. For you are the one who concluded a innate moral sense from the oxytocin story, and focused only on generosity to make your argument.

While it is clear from research that it modulates more behaviors. This research only proves what we all know from decades, that hormones and neuro-transmitters affects behaviors.

What is missing is proof for innate "morality"

You still fundamentally don't get it.

You are viewing every argument through your own prism, a general worldview that goes like this. Properties of objects are either determined or accidental. If determined, they must be. If accidental, they can be freely chosen.

This worldview underpins a too common modern ideology - that the properties of humans must be either "innate" and determined, or else they are free choices, a matter of freewill. Hence your need here to claim babies are born "undetermined and amoral", when otherwise the only alternative in your eyes is that they are fully determined at birth in regards to their future choices.

I speak for a completely different worldview. Local properties are the result of global contexts. They are neither determined, nor free, but the product of top-down constraints.

The ideology that results from such a worldview thus welcomes global constraints - because they are the actual source of local "freedoms", as well as local "deterministic properties". Constraints make you what you are - a something with a definite nature, but neither a determined nor a random one.

So this worldview sees evolved social order and evolved biological order as positive forces. There could be no "you" of any definite kind without strong downward acting constraints which focus you into some definite state of being.

Thus in no sense have I ever argued that oxytocin is the molecule or the gene for generosity or any other moral trait. In a systems view, objects do not have "innate properties". What I in fact said was that the property (moral behaviour) was "innate" to the system as a whole. And then I proceeded to analyse the system accordingly.

Breaking it down, the core evolutionary dynamic - the one that equilibrates Darwinian fitness across all scales of a species organisation, from the individual to the largest social scale - is competition~co-operation. And competition is plainly the bottom up, constructive, mode of action. Co-operation stands for the top-down constraints.

Humans, as complex social animals, evolved their large brains (with the associated complex neuromodulation) so as to be able to negotiate between these contrasting needs with deep intelligence. To deny morality has natural roots - or must do, in the long run, as it is an issue both of definite individual identity and group survival - is muddled thinking based on false (too simple) ideology.

 

[DanP]

You still fundamentally don't get it.

I feel the same about you, but its not a problem.

The ideology that results from such a worldview thus welcomes global constraints - because they are the actual source of local "freedoms", as well as local "deterministic properties". Constraints make you what you are - a something with a definite nature, but neither a determined nor a random one.

So this worldview sees evolved social order and evolved biological order as positive forces. There could be no "you" of any definite kind without strong downward acting constraints which focus you into some definite state of being.

The problem is not with your worldview, but with some derivations made from a sound theory, derivations which cannot be proved today, and which are far from being parsimonious. Such as the Darwinian evolved morality (component) .

Mind is not a blank slate. I personally assign to genetics much more than others, but there is a fundamental difference between your opinions and mine. I view Darwinian competition / cooperation as amoral. I feel no need to overload adaptive behaviours with "morality", a vague human concept involved such muddy areas as good and evil, right and wrong. Nature doesn't know good from evil.

The whole story of "morality", dark side / light side, golden rules are part of the social identity of a person. And what makes a human behave morally or not, are his impulse control circuits in PFC. That is ultimately the filter, which may restrain a behavior or not in accordance with social rules. Moral principles philosophically only make sense is they are associate with free will and with impulse control. free will absent, the whole philosophy of morality goes down the drain.

Thus in no sense have I ever argued that oxytocin is the molecule or the gene for generosity or any other moral trait. In a systems view, objects do not have "innate properties". What I in fact said was that the property (moral behaviour) was "innate" to the system as a whole. And then I proceeded to analyse the system accordingly.

But then you shouldn't post things like :

I've already presented the oxytocin example as a data point. Now you explain by what concept of morality this is irrelevant.

Who could deny that "generosity" is standardly taken as a moral trait. And that a brain neuromodulator is shown to have a direct effect on the expression of this trait. Thus there is your link.

Which are extremely weak by any stretch of imagination to imply a link between biology and morality. And oxytocin story was the only thing you psoted as evidence for your claims so far.

All the effects of oxytocin in mammalians (including social ones, and the agressivity increase to out-group is very relevant IMO) could be simply explained as the product of a "selfish gene", which simply cues the mother in behaviors which ensure optimal chances for offspring survival.

There is no need to postulate a link to morality, just about everything can be explained through a selfish gene theory.

Humans, as complex social animals, evolved their large brains (with the associated complex neuromodulation) so as to be able to negotiate between these contrasting needs with deep intelligence. To deny morality has natural roots - or must do, in the long run, as it is an issue both of definite individual identity and group survival - is muddled thinking based on false (too simple) ideology.

Actually no. To postulate biological roots for morality, lacking any evidence, is as muddled as postulating a "soul" in the being. You simply cannot postulate a theory of such magnitude on gut-feelings, and complexity of an ideology. You can't say, the amoral view of Darwinian evolution is too simple, and hence morality is , at least partially, innate. There must be "morality" in our genes. No one will buy that.

You still can convince me by presenting more evidence.

 

[apeiron]

You can't say, the amoral view of Darwinian evolution is too simple, and hence morality is innate. There must be morality in our genes. No one will buy that.

Clearly you are still not getting it because that is not what I said.

Morality exists (as a concept people find meaningful). Now either we can assimilate it to a natural science POV or not.

The selfish gene approach of Dawkins was exactly the kind of arch-reductionist approach that is "too simple". It needs to be matched by an equal degree of "the co-operative and unselfish".

But to give a populariser like Dawkins his due, he was right to reduce evolutionary fitness to its most atomistic (blind competition among genes). And he also then spent a lot of time worrying about the other obvious half this misses out (the extended phenotype, memetic evolution, etc).

The mistake he and his followers continue to make though is that they still want to resist that leap to the other side - to a full acceptance of top down systems causality, the role played by context or global constraints. So the "other" is acknowledged (as it has to be). But then there is a continual battle of polemics to minimise it in any way possible (as you so eagerly demonstrate).

This is why you push the line that the selfish gene can explain moral or altruistic behaviour as an extended form of selfishness. And why evolution is fundamentally amoral. You are simply expressing what is required of you as a result of the constraints of a particular worldview.

I take the approach that when people talk about morality, they think they are talking about something. So what is it? What is the best way to assimilate it to scientific understanding.

Clearly human morality is broadly functional in its cultural settings. Clearly it is subject to evolutionary logic. Clearly the same general balancing act - how to rub along and get ahead - is there in social animals generally, so would have a biological basis as well.

We don't have to exaggerate any of this. We don't have to set up oxytocin as the molecule for generosity. But we can see how it underpins pro-social behaviour in complex ways (just as the prefrontal cortex can be seen as another example of top-down systems constraint that negotiates between social demands and individual urges).

Your approach forces you to seek the negative. If it comes from above, then it must be found not to exist. Science can have no place for it.

My approach does the opposite. It can hope to assimilate high level constructs like morality, freewill, consciousness to a science-based worldview. Which is why I like it better.

 

[Math Is Hard]

After re-reading the original topic, it seems that both of you would be satisfied that atheism is quite compatible with natural rights. I think we're just splitting hairs now over the possible inherent mechanisms or social constructs of a moral sense. This side bar might be better suited for biology or social sciences.