Stephen Black writes:
"Morality can't be established by examination of evidence or by logic.
It's determined by belief."
My response:
I am certainly tired of playing atheist's advocate in this argument. I
just have to say that on this point Stephen and I will just have to
agree to agree. Stephen does conclude later (see below} that survival
value may be a useful way to determine the best morality. I disagree
with that.
Stephen then challenges me to
"name some of the moral precepts [Rick believes] are universal. I'm
pretty sure it would turn out that of all the enormously varied moral
beliefs held by people across this planet, the ones he names turn out to
be those he himself holds. Is this mere coincidence? Is Rick just lucky
that he stands on the right side of every belief? Or does it indicate
the profound enthnocentrism of the concept?"
Mea culpa. In naming beliefs held universally by cultures around the
world, I am pretty sure I would end up naming ones I myself hold. Would
it be helpful for me to name universal beliefs that I myself do not
hold? I give Stephen credit for his appreciation of the irony involved
here. It may be that when extraterrestrial contact is made, we may find
these to be very terracentrist beliefs.
Remember though, that I never said everyone had to believe it for it to
be universally true. I said if everyone reasoned correctly, including
myself, they would all agree. Stephen does believe (see below) in the
possibility that eons from now a morality will have evolved that has
stood the test of time and has led to the survival of the group existing
at that time. So, theoretically, it should be possible today to reason
what kind of a morality should lead to such an outcome and to ascertain
this universal principle ahead of time.
Rick says, plaintively:
> I am certainly despairing for an atheistic moralist (or even an
agnostic
> moralist) to take up the standard here <snip>
>
> In fact, maybe Stephen is arguing well
> for my own belief that, if God did not create the moral law, there is
no
> absolute standard favoring a particular morality over any other. Lying
is as
> good as honesty, stealing is as good as giving and killing is as good
as
> nurturing (maybe better in all cases if it leads to your personal
survival).
<snip>
Stephen replies:
"There is a (limited) loophole in this dismal state of affairs.
It's that beliefs that produce behaviour which leads to the
survival of the group will become dominant. Beliefs that lead to
less reproductive success will not. There is no goodness or
badness here; only the working of evolution. So we can only hope
that principles such as truth, honesty, and an abhorence of
killing lead ultimately to that kind of success, rather than
principles of lying, stealing, and killing."
I am not sure on what basis we could hope for that or even why we would
hope for anything since nothing can be accomplished outside of what must
happen according to this survival of the fittest morality. Would I hope
for a morality that will lead to the extirmination of the species? In
any case, the limited loophole is cold comfort. If reproductive success
within a single generation is what's driving this, there would seem to
be no argument that lying to, stealing from and killing your competitors
will lead to some success while pacifism or self-sacrifice isn't likely
to get you anywhere.
I misunderstood the examples of Stephen's original speculation when he
said:
> "A speculation: cultural beliefs must persist because they promote
> the survival of the group that believes them. Beliefs harmful to
> the group will lead instead to its extinction (e.g. the Shakers'
> belief in celibacy; Heaven's Gate followers' belief in suicide).
> So rather than evil, as the Lucifer Principle apparently claims,
> it may be belief in a particular morality that has survival
> value."
And I mistakenly replied:
>
> Simply "believing that it is good to act in a particular way" promotes
> survival didn't do much for Heaven's Gate followers (assuming they are
not
> actually on that asteroid right now) or the Quakers as you point out.
Stephen set me straight by saying:
"That's the point. If a group insists on choosing strikingly
inappropriate moral beliefs such as celibacy or death, they're
sure not going to make more babies to carry their views forward.
Seen any Heaven's's Gaters or Shakers lately? But in most cases,
it's a lot more subtle than that, and we have to take the long
view. In evolution, the long view is a few million years. So
place your bets about which morality has the most staying power,
and let's check 'em out two million years from now. In the
meantime, I'll hold the bets for everyone (they're safe with me,
despite my moral views)."
Now I admit the error of my ways:
OK, now I see that you are saying that it is not simply belief in a
moral code (or the existence of evil) that has survival value (as I
think is posited by the idea of the Lucifer principle). Stephen is
saying that there are certain moral principles that will stand the test
of time and still be around in a few million years because of their
survival value. (Although, who determines when the bet is over and does
this mean that all people will eventually coalesce into a single culture
(all wearing the same aluminum v-neck jumpsuit) with a single morality
or will different moralities exist in different niches depending on what
works for survival in that niche? If our alien friends show up tomorrow
with a moral code that is the product of 20 million years of evolution,
would it be superior to ours? (Whew! I am starting to feel like Olaf
Stapledon.))
Now, we get to the crux of the matter. If we perform certain behaviors
because those behaviors have survival value, don't we then credit those
behaviors as being reflective of the way the world works? Isn't this
what science is saying: "if it works, it is a true reflection of the
state of affairs as they exist, or at least as good an explanation as we
can now generate"? Couldn't the same then be said for a moral code that
stands the test of time and has survival value? This code works because
it is at least an approximation of an accurate reflection of the state
of affairs as they exist in the universe. If so, the moral code has some
basis in pragmatism and has escaped cultural relativity.
Then Stephen scares me with:
"Now the swan song. As the self-declared subscriber with the
longest continuous unbroken active subscription to TIPS, I feel
it's time to pass the torch (or the duckling) to someone else.
I'm going to temporarily go nomail while I join the International
Brigade, find a brave bull, and think about death in the
afternoon. Or, like Ferdinand, just smell the flowers."
I truly hope it is nothing I said. TIPS without Stephen Black would not
be worth the pain of hitting the delete key. Then I noted he said,
"temporarily" and I breathed a sigh of relief. I will look forward to
Stephen's return.
Rick
Rick Froman
Psychology Department
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
