ZOMBIE FORUMS

There's a problem here though: That's your definition of morality. Ayn Rand would say that morality consists in enlightened self-interest. Without a god of some kind, there's no objective standard on which to base our decisions. Also, even if we go by your definition, protecting yourself sometimes prevents you from offering maximum benefit to the group. Wouldn't the decision of where your rights end and the rights of others begin be totally arbitrary?

That's a general definition of morality. All specific versions I can think of, including Ayn Rand's, fall under it; they differ in their specifics, but all are intended to give some benefit to the group (although some, like Rand's, put it in other terms) while offering some protection (again, the spscific degree varies greatly) to the individual. That's all basically semantics, though. It doesn't matter <i>which</i> general definition of morality we choose; the point is that, no matter which we choose, it inevitably relates to the real world in some manner and can therefore be judged by how well it succeeds in the real world.

P-M

-><-

But isn't the success of a moral system still defined on its own terms? If a utilitarian, for example, could create a world where everyone lived in total happiness at the expense of 5% of the population having to be sacrificed every year, he would. The fact is, real moral debates often, if not almost always, depend on the way one evaluates the "success" or "non-success" of a situation.

Not exactly. Moral standards have to be evaluated in terms of the definition of morality we choose, it's true, but that latter definition is hardly arbitrary either. You obviously want to achieve some goal by choosing a moral standard (the fact that we evolved morals at all attests to this), and, usually, it comes down to "personal pleasure" versus "the good of the DNA I carry" (The two are hardly mutually exclusive, by the way). I suppose you could choose some wonk-ass definition, such as "That which benefits spotted owls and <i>Sequoia sempervirens</i> is Good", but what would be the point of that?

You make the mistake of assuming that such choices do not have consequences.

P-M

-><-

I admit that generally human beings share the same basic moral standards, but what about insane people? What about people who do believe that morality is what protects spotted owls ans sequoias? What about people who believe morality entails killingh everyone but themselves? They're "crazy", but why are they "crazy"? Just because they're in the minority? In that case, is morality dictated by what the majority believes?

Morality just seems to me to be a very arbitrary, unscientific concept.

The whole point is that the choice of a moral standard is not without consequences. Sure, you could pick something like "Killing people is Good", but (a) your life would probably suck, and (b) your genes would not get passed on. Like it or not, we're still primarily defined by biology, moral standards included; while logic gives us a powerful tool for refining moral standards, the incentives for "proper behavior" (whatever that is) differ very little from person to person. The reason most crazy people are considered crazy (barring non-disorders like Asperger's and ADD) is that they engage in behaviors which are not conducive to either the survival of their own genes or those of other members of the species; in other words, their incentive system got fubared somewhere.

Morality is <i>not</i> defined by the will of the majority, although the morality of the majority, by virtue of <i>being</i> the morality of the majority, is probably fairly sound in one way or another. The analogy to biology is more than skin deep. Successful species are by definition stupendous badasses; the analogy to memes can't be that difficult.

P-M

-><-

This is true. Still, however, morality doesn't necessarily have to be defined by evolution. That being said, if someone's morality involves looking out only for themselves, or even going on a killing spree, if that's what they think they should do, regardless of evolutionary imperatives and the like, then there's really no way that you can convince them, on their own terms, that what they're doing is wrng. For any moral debate to be effective at all, the speakers must have the same assumptions. Not everyone assumes what works in evolution and what is moral is the same thing.

True, but convincing people of morality is an entirely different problem than evaluating the validity of a moral system in the abstract. People can be stupid, or stubborn, or crazy, and any one of these pretty much sinks your chances for changing their minds in any reasonable and timely fashion. But really, who cares? Utility and survivability determine a moral system's success; taking this into account, why should we grant moral systems which obviously lack both any weight at all?

I'm not sure what you mean by "morality doesn't necessarily have to be defined by evolution"; moral systems which aren't workable in the context of <i>Homo sapiens</i> (e.g. Shakerism, the Heaven's Gate cult, etc) simply don't survive, so of course they'll be defined by evolution in the long run.

P-M

-><-

But different forms of morality define success in different ways. For example, the Greeks abandoned genetically defective babies by the mountainside; for them, success involved having the fittest possible civilization, and the idea of individual, inalienable human rights was utterly foreign to them.



Morality doesn't necessarily have to be defined as "the most evolutionarily viable course of action". The morality that "survives" is just that: the morality that works best for evolutionary purposes. If you want to define morality as the system of evaluating actions that will result in the maximum amount of the holder's genes to be included in the gene pool of the next generation, then that's your definition. Some people believe that what's "natural" and what's "right" are two different things, and that the survival of a moral system doesn't determine it's correctness.

Keep in mind that evolution itself is not "purposeful"; it's a natural process, and it isn't governed by any higher intelligence. Applying human concepts to natural processes is just plain stupid. Evolution doesn't select the "best" animals. It selects the animals that are selected. (I hesistate to even say that "Evolution" selects anything, as if Evolution were an intelligent entity, since that also involves a dangerous amount of anthropomorphisization.)