5 ms·

This is fascinating. The dilemma he poses at the end is something i have thought about a lot - "How far can the empirical debunking of human moral nature go? I

This is fascinating. The dilemma he poses at the end is something i have thought about a lot - "How far can the empirical debunking of human moral nature go? If science tells me that I love my children more than other children only because they share my genes (Hamilton, 1964), should I feel uneasy about loving them extra? If science tells me that I’m nice to other people only because a disposition to be nice ultimately helped my ancestors spread their genes (Trivers, 1971), should I stop being nice to people? ... It seems that one who is unwilling to act on human tendencies with amoral evolutionary causes is ultimately unwilling to be human. Where does one draw the line between correcting the near-sightedness of human moral nature and obliterating it completely?" The more I overthink and let the "cognitive" part take over, the more the question nags me. The kind of cognitive detachment it takes to ask these questions and digest philosophy is why most people avoid philosophy. Its not healthy to be too detached from your emotions. So it seems like by asking that question, empiricism and rationality have already gone too far.

steve19 11y ago
"... is why most people avoid philosophy" Billions of people discuss and debate morality every week at Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques and Monasteries etc. I don't think its that people don't want to be asked big questions or told how they act is wrong and should be changed. I would argue they avoid it because 20th century philosophers are either boring/abstract, too political or too preachy. For example, postmodernism thought, Feminist philosophy and Green Philosophy all tend towards certain political agendas which it offputting to those who don't agree with the agendas. Modern philosophers also tend to be anti-religion, putting off most of the world's population (being lectured on how the concept of a God has been the source of all the world's problem for millennia is tiresome, as tiresome as you would find a charismatic preacher telling you that you will go to hell for being an Atheist) There are in fact Atheistic movements towards creating moral/church-experiences centered around philosophy, one such example if the London School of Life. http://www.theschooloflife.com/london/ http://www.theschooloflife.com/london/ I think it is very sad Schools of Philosophy, like those of Ancient Greece, no longer exist. Sadly, I don't think they could exist in today's outrage-driven cultural climate where online lynch mobs are on the hunt for someone to say something controversial.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- weinzierl 11y ago
  For a lighthearted introduction to many philosophical topics I can recommend the Youtube channel of "The School of Life". https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel
- thyrsus 11y ago
  My experience of religion as practiced deals very little with the "cognitive" (see article), and very much with emotions, such as gratitude, affection and reverence (as well as less positive feelings). It is rare that an appeal is made to syllogism rather than sympathy.
  - steve19 11y ago
    I can't speak to all religious traditions, I would say that in many Judeo-Christian traditions, that is not the case (and again, I can't speak for even a small minority of these traditions) "Why do we do what we do?" or "Why do we believe this to be so?" are frequently asked and debated. There is an assumption that there are logical reasons for beliefs, due to physical, societal or psychological negative|positive consequences, even if those reasons are thousands of years out of date (not eating pork for example). Emotion can have very little to do with it. On the other hand, there sure are many traditions that only emphasize feelings and emotions. I don't believe any is better than the other (each to his or her own).
amelius 11y ago
> Its not healthy to be too detached from your emotions. Isn't detaching from emotions just what people do when they are in meditation, as taught by e.g. Buddhists? That does not seem unhealthy to me.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kerkeslager 11y ago
Well, I see a problem with your approach (and Greene's approach) here, which is that science doesn't give you a "should", at least not in a general sense. Science only helps us understand facts and processes. If you have a goal you want to achieve, science can often tell you how to achieve that goal, that is, science can tell you what you "should" do, if you have a goal. And sometimes science can help you guess what your goals might be (because people often have similar goals). This gives us some insight into these questions. We can ask, what's your goal?: > "If science tells me that I love my children more than other children only because they share my genes (Hamilton, 1964), should I feel uneasy about loving them extra?" This depends on what your goal is. Evolutionary theory tells us that most people want their offspring to survive and reproduce, and have no such goal for the survival of other people. So if that's your goal, then you should love them extra. If that's not your goal (and for some small percentage of the population it won't be) that doesn't give you any imperative, so there's no basis for saying that you should or shouldn't feel anything about your kids. > "If science tells me that I’m nice to other people only because a disposition to be nice ultimately helped my ancestors spread their genes (Trivers, 1971), should I stop being nice to people?" Again, this fact only gives you an imperative if it relates to your goals. If your goal is to spread your genes, then you should be nice to people. If that's not your goal, then Trivers' research doesn't provide any guidance as to what you should or shouldn't do. It's worth noting that there are plenty of other goals for which science might tell you that you should love your children or be nice to people. Is your goal to have someone take care of you when you're old? Then you should love your children. Is your goal to have a successful career and make lots of money? Then you should be nice to people. The most interesting part of this, to me, is that it forces us to take responsibility for our ethics. Within this framework, when you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, you're telling them that it doesn't fit with your goals. When a society makes laws against behaviors, they're declaring that those behaviors don't fit with the shared goals of the members of the society. That doesn't mean that there is no basis for forcing one's ethics on others--often one's goals require it. For example, it is my goal to live an adequately long, healthy, and productive, so I have no qualms forcing my ethic of "do not murder" on other people. And most people share that goal, which is why murder is illegal everywhere I know of. There are a lot of different directions to explore this idea. The core, though, is simply that there's no "should" without a goal.

steve19 11y ago

"... is why most people avoid philosophy" Billions of people discuss and debate morality every week at Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Mosques and Monasteries etc. I don't think its that people don't want to be asked big questions or told how they act is wrong and should be changed. I would argue they avoid it because 20th century philosophers are either boring/abstract, too political or too preachy. For example, postmodernism thought, Feminist philosophy and Green Philosophy all tend towards certain political agendas which it offputting to those who don't agree with the agendas. Modern philosophers also tend to be anti-religion, putting off most of the world's population (being lectured on how the concept of a God has been the source of all the world's problem for millennia is tiresome, as tiresome as you would find a charismatic preacher telling you that you will go to hell for being an Atheist) There are in fact Atheistic movements towards creating moral/church-experiences centered around philosophy, one such example if the London School of Life. http://www.theschooloflife.com/london/ http://www.theschooloflife.com/london/ I think it is very sad Schools of Philosophy, like those of Ancient Greece, no longer exist. Sadly, I don't think they could exist in today's outrage-driven cultural climate where online lynch mobs are on the hunt for someone to say something controversial.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
weinzierl 11y ago
For a lighthearted introduction to many philosophical topics I can recommend the Youtube channel of "The School of Life". https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel https://www.youtube.com/user/schooloflifechannel
thyrsus 11y ago
My experience of religion as practiced deals very little with the "cognitive" (see article), and very much with emotions, such as gratitude, affection and reverence (as well as less positive feelings). It is rare that an appeal is made to syllogism rather than sympathy.
- steve19 11y ago
  I can't speak to all religious traditions, I would say that in many Judeo-Christian traditions, that is not the case (and again, I can't speak for even a small minority of these traditions) "Why do we do what we do?" or "Why do we believe this to be so?" are frequently asked and debated. There is an assumption that there are logical reasons for beliefs, due to physical, societal or psychological negative|positive consequences, even if those reasons are thousands of years out of date (not eating pork for example). Emotion can have very little to do with it. On the other hand, there sure are many traditions that only emphasize feelings and emotions. I don't believe any is better than the other (each to his or her own).

amelius 11y ago

> Its not healthy to be too detached from your emotions. Isn't detaching from emotions just what people do when they are in meditation, as taught by e.g. Buddhists? That does not seem unhealthy to me.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

kerkeslager 11y ago

Well, I see a problem with your approach (and Greene's approach) here, which is that science doesn't give you a "should", at least not in a general sense. Science only helps us understand facts and processes. If you have a goal you want to achieve, science can often tell you how to achieve that goal, that is, science can tell you what you "should" do, if you have a goal. And sometimes science can help you guess what your goals might be (because people often have similar goals). This gives us some insight into these questions. We can ask, what's your goal?: > "If science tells me that I love my children more than other children only because they share my genes (Hamilton, 1964), should I feel uneasy about loving them extra?" This depends on what your goal is. Evolutionary theory tells us that most people want their offspring to survive and reproduce, and have no such goal for the survival of other people. So if that's your goal, then you should love them extra. If that's not your goal (and for some small percentage of the population it won't be) that doesn't give you any imperative, so there's no basis for saying that you should or shouldn't feel anything about your kids. > "If science tells me that I’m nice to other people only because a disposition to be nice ultimately helped my ancestors spread their genes (Trivers, 1971), should I stop being nice to people?" Again, this fact only gives you an imperative if it relates to your goals. If your goal is to spread your genes, then you should be nice to people. If that's not your goal, then Trivers' research doesn't provide any guidance as to what you should or shouldn't do. It's worth noting that there are plenty of other goals for which science might tell you that you should love your children or be nice to people. Is your goal to have someone take care of you when you're old? Then you should love your children. Is your goal to have a successful career and make lots of money? Then you should be nice to people. The most interesting part of this, to me, is that it forces us to take responsibility for our ethics. Within this framework, when you tell someone that what they are doing is wrong, you're telling them that it doesn't fit with your goals. When a society makes laws against behaviors, they're declaring that those behaviors don't fit with the shared goals of the members of the society. That doesn't mean that there is no basis for forcing one's ethics on others--often one's goals require it. For example, it is my goal to live an adequately long, healthy, and productive, so I have no qualms forcing my ethic of "do not murder" on other people. And most people share that goal, which is why murder is illegal everywhere I know of. There are a lot of different directions to explore this idea. The core, though, is simply that there's no "should" without a goal.