Atheism, Evolution and Moral Nihilism

[Adamoriens]

It is often argued by atheist and theist alike that evolutionary explanations for morality refute the idea that there are any "spooky" moral facts, and that therefore atheists ought to think there are no moral facts. But nobody on this board (so far as I have observed) has actually made a good argument toward this end. Here is the best I can come up with:

The moral beliefs of humans have been created and conditioned by, apart from cultural factors, the impersonal demands of evolution. Thus we find that our moral beliefs tend to facilitate reproduction and the passing of healthy genetic material onto the next generation. The universal tendency to especially value one's own immediate family, offspring and friends, the protection of children and women (chivalry, perhaps), the (general) disgust for murder, rape and incestuous sex, etc. are all explained by evolution's blind selection for adaptive behaviours. Assuming this is true, we can conclude that our moral beliefs are not sensitive to "spooky" moral facts, but rather to the impersonal pressures demanded by survival. And since knowledge requires a causal connection between facts and beliefs, it follows that none of our moral beliefs are knowledge; they have never tracked facts, only evolutionary pressures.

There are two points I'd like to make here. The first is that this challenge to moral beliefs must be met by theists as well; the evolutionary explanations are impersonal, which means that their success in explaining moral beliefs entails that the idea God has endowed us with reliable moral faculties is less probable (probably false). The second is that both the theist and the atheist can conceivably get around the challenge by positing that evolution happened to select for moral beliefs that actually correlate with moral facts; theists might come out in better shape here.

Any thoughts?

[Haven]

we are rational animals.

What exactly leads you to the conclusion that other animals (for instance, chimpanzees and dolphins) do not possess the capacity for rationality?

[McCulloch]

So humans are the only existing animals with the ability for complex abstract thought.

Not just complex abstract thought, but abstract thought of any kind, complex or simple.

Isn't all thought to some degree abstract?

We still are animals.

Never said otherwise. My point is only that we are rational animals.

Yes. Is your point that we are the only rational animal or that we are the most rational animal?

Chimpanzees mental acuity is really rather amazing compared to starfish.

Granted. There are other ways we can measure intelligence in animals that doesn't amount to saying "And the intelligence of other animals is the same in quality as it is in humans."

All of the mammals have noses. But only the elephants (and to a lesser degree Tapirs) have prehensile noses. The elephant's trunk is sensitive enough to pick up a single blade of grass, yet strong enough to rip the branches off a tree. They use their trunks to tear up their food and then place it in their mouths. They will graze on grass or reach up into trees to grasp leaves, fruit, or entire branches. If the desired food item is too high up, the elephant will wrap its trunk around the tree or branch and shake its food loose. The trunk is also used for drinking. Elephants suck water up into the trunk"up to 14 litres at a time"and then blow it into their mouths. Elephants also suck up water to spray on their bodies during bathing. On top of this watery coating, the animals will then spray dirt and mud, which dries and acts as a protective sunscreen. When swimming, the trunk makes an excellent snorkel.

In short, they do a whole lot more with their noses than we do. No one else makes use of their noses like the elephants do. But, biologically, they are still just noses.

We do a whole lot more with our brains than elephant do. No one else makes use of their brains like humans so. Our brain is larger and more versatile than an elephant's just as an elephant's trunk is larger and more versatile than our nose. But, biologically, our brain and the elephant's are just brains.

[TheJackelantern]

Just so people know, there is a ton of evidence mounting that Dolphins and Orcas are quite self-aware.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ecognition
http://news.discovery.com/animals/dolph ... ction.html

And there is even a push to classify them as "non-human persons" to where killing them would be equal to murder:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/s ... 973994.ece
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread531611/pg1

Such animals display culture, language dialects, and of course morality.. Anything with a brain actually show behaviors in dealing with morality. So it's moot to be arguing this since morality is relatively innate in nature.

[AquinasD]

Isn't all thought to some degree abstract?

It is abstract when one deduces from the form of a problem to be solved the logical structure that rests underneath the concrete appearances of reality. In short, where a dog might understand that a hair went up one path or another, a human can understand also the principle of either/or.

Yes. Is your point that we are the only rational animal or that we are the most rational animal?

Man possesses a rational principle. And that is what makes man rational.

My sense of rational here is precise, and doesn't mean just "smarter."

We do a whole lot more with our brains than elephant do. No one else makes use of their brains like humans so. Our brain is larger and more versatile than an elephant's just as an elephant's trunk is larger and more versatile than our nose. But, biologically, our brain and the elephant's are just brains.

This doesn't demonstrate that our brain and the elephant's are qualitatively alike. My point is that there are qualitative differences. Pointing out repeatedly that there are similarities doesn't prove there aren't significant dissimilarities.

[Haven]

[quote="

Man possesses a rational principle. And that is what makes man rational.

How do you know that no other animal ... is precise, and doesn't mean just "smarter."[/quote]

Your definition is tautological, as "rational animal" (in the context you use it here) is defined as "a classical definition of man." You are essentially arguing that "man is man," which is a meaningless tautology.

This doesn't demonstrate that our brain and the elephant's are qualitatively alike. My point is that there are qualitative differences. Pointing out repeatedly that there are similarities doesn't prove there aren't significant dissimilarities.

Do you have any argument or empirical evidence to back up this assertion?

[AquinasD]

How do you know that no other animal possesses this "rational principle?"

All animals thus far have failed to demonstrate any possession of the rational principle, even when subjected to tests under which their rational principle would've been exemplified. Consider the overwhelming lack of evidence, it is only reasonable to assume that this is best explained by their actual lack of possessing the rational principle.

Your definition is tautological, as "rational animal" (in the context you use it here) is defined as "a classical definition of man." You are essentially arguing that "man is man," which is a meaningless tautology.

That "rational animal" is a classical definition of man is true, but that is a historical accident and you have clearly missed the essential point, which is that man is unique in the fact of his possession of the rational principle. My argument is not tautologous; one might meaningfully disagree that man could be properly defined as a "rational animal" or else that man is the only "rational animal."

Do you have any argument or empirical evidence to back up this assertion?

The rational principle gives to man the ability to understand the world for what it is in all its metaphysical grandeur, beyond appearances to the logical structure that holds underneath. It is what allows him to not merely do math, but to ask questions about the superstructure of formal systems, from the grounds of logic to metaphysics and morality. His understanding is semantical, not merely syntactical. He operates as a rationally conscious being.

Animals, for all our studying, clearly lack this rational principle. Even those times they seem to exemplify semantical understanding, it can be explained in terms of psychological conditioning.

[Haven]

All animals thus far have failed to demonstrate any possession of the rational principle, even when subjected to tests under which their rational principle would've been exemplified. Consider the overwhelming lack of evidence, it is only reasonable to assume that this is best explained by their actual lack of possessing the rational principle.

I might be in danger of appealing to ignorance here, but it is theoretically possible that other animals (for example, cetaceans) may possess the rational principle, however, their brains may function in such a way as to leave us unable to detect their rational principle. Our understanding of the human brain is very little, and we understand far less about the brains of, for example, orcas and dolphins.

which is that man is unique in the fact of his possession of the rational principle. My argument is not tautologous; one might meaningfully disagree that man could be properly defined as a "rational animal" or else that man is the only "rational animal."

Fair enough. However, I still do not feel we have enough evidence to confidently state that man is the only animal to possess the rational principle. Also, even if we ARE the only animals on earth to possess the rational principle, why must we then conclude that our brains are of supernatural origin? Why couldn't a rational brain evolve via purely naturalistic processes?

The rational principle gives to man the ability to understand the world for what it is in all its metaphysical grandeur, beyond appearances to the logical structure that holds underneath. It is what allows him to not merely do math, but to ask questions about the superstructure of formal systems, from the grounds of logic to metaphysics and morality. His understanding is semantical, not merely syntactical. He operates as a rationally conscious being.

We have no way of knowing whether or not we "understand the world for what it is in all its metaphysical grandeur . . .," because if there are phenomena we are unable to grasp with our brains, we would by definition never become aware of them.

To use a simple analogy, a dog thinks that she knows everything there is to know about the world and sees the world "as it is." However, the dog, even though its brain is filled to maximum capacity with knowledge, will never be able to understand quantum mechanics, philosophy, or constructivist political theory, because her brain is not developed enough to grasp those concepts.

Who is to say that the same situation doesn't exist with us? Hypothetically, there may be some advanced race of aliens out there with far more advanced brains than humans, who have capabilities for rationality far exceeding ours and grasp metaphysical concepts of which we cannot even conceive.

For these reasons, we cannot confidently state that we "see the world as it is in all its metaphysical grandeur."

[TheJackelantern]

All animals thus far have failed to demonstrate any possession of the rational principle, even when subjected to tests under which their rational principle would've been exemplified. Consider the overwhelming lack of evidence, it is only reasonable to assume that this is best explained by their actual lack of possessing the rational principle.

This is false. And we are talking about morality and not specifically rationality. And technically speaking, we live in quantized existence. And that means our existence is inherently rational regardless of the relativity of morality or rationality.. You are however mistakenly comparing your sense of rationality with that of animals as if they possess no rational dynamics in their behavior, or interactions with their environment ect..

That "rational animal" is a classical definition of man is true, but that is a historical accident and you have clearly missed the essential point, which is that man is unique in the fact of his possession of the rational principle.

Incorrect. We only posses a higher cognitive ability to apply the principles of rationality... We are unique, but not as much as you like to think.. Hence, you are being blinded by your desire to feel more important than other living things as if you shouldn't be considered an animal, or a part of the animal kingdom. That's called denial and ignorance of the reality that you are.

The rational principle gives to man the ability to understand the world for what it is in all its metaphysical grandeur, beyond appearances to the logical structure that holds underneath. It is what allows him to not merely do math, but to ask questions about the superstructure of formal systems, from the grounds of logic to metaphysics and morality. His understanding is semantical, not merely syntactical. He operates as a rationally conscious being.

Funny, we can find irrationality in the human species too.. And sorry, you are just alluding to higher cognitive functionality.

Animals, for all our studying, clearly lack this rational principle.

Incorrect.

Intelligent behavior in animals and robots
http://books.google.com/books?id=MAWPaZ ... CB4Q6AEwAA
books.google.com/books?isbn=0262132931...David McFarland, Tom Bsser - 1993 - Computers - 308 pages
In short, any agent that exhibits rational behavior, even a simple machine, shows ... and (3) studies of the micro- economic behavior of humans and animals.

If animals were completely irrational in cognitive function, they would be completely unable to function within their environment..

[scourge99]

How do you know that no other animal possesses this "rational principle?"

All animals thus far have failed to demonstrate any possession of the rational principle, even when subjected to tests under which their rational principle would've been exemplified.

what tests demonstrate the possession of the rational principle?
What is the "rational principle"?

[Haven]

How do you know that no other animal possesses this "rational principle?"

All animals thus far have failed to demonstrate any possession of the rational principle, even when subjected to tests under which their rational principle would've been exemplified.

what tests demonstrate the possession of the rational principle?
What is the "rational principle"?

Aristotle's rational principle is basically a statement that a being has the capacity for logical thought, philosophical reasoning, and self-awareness.

http://www.plu.edu/~nelsoned/Courses/11 ... totle.html