The meaning of life. Deep Down.

[PyramidHead]

A team of firefighters rush into a burning building to save an elderly lady. They get her to safety, but many of them die in the process. From a genetic standpoint, this is a massive waste of reproductive resources and they should have let the elderly woman burn to preserve the more valuable assets in the gonads of the firefighters.

The firefighters are duty bound to protect the lives, and to a lesser extent the property, of their community.

So what would be the explanation if it was just a bunch of random guys with no social duty to save people from burning buildings?

A less extreme example would be dedicating one's life to improving the welfare of non-human animals. This is done purely out of compassion for other sentient beings and does nothing to further the replication of one's own DNA, which would rather we use that energy to make stable copies of itself in other humans.

If we used all the energy and resources at our disposal to reproduce we would overpopulate the Earth and create misery and chaos for ourselves and our decendants.

True, but we are definitely not doing everything in our power to maximize the population of organisms that carry our genes. From a social engineering perspective, it could be done a lot more efficiently if we didn't worry about things like respecting the bodily autonomy of women of childbearing age. We have a lot of unused resources and plenty of room on the globe, enough to sustain maybe double our current numbers if we all hunkered down. Once we reached the maximum carrying capacity we could slow down and divert resources to colonizing other planets. From a genetic perspective this strategy would be fantastic.

I would argue that it is pointless and cruel. What is inherently valuable about there being more carriers of human DNA?

What's the actual purpose of prolonging the lifespan of our species, or any other, from a moral standpoint?

 

[Speakpigeon]

For the kind of choice that's available to us to be an illusion there would have to be something else that would qualify as true, genuine choice.

Not necessarily. It may be that the kind of choice we think we have doesn't actually exist, and the nature of the actual kind of choice available to us is something not everyone is aware of.

Right, I sure expressed myself poorly.

My point is that you'd need to be able to specify what true choice would be if it existed to claim that the kind of choice available to us is illusory.

If you want to claim that "the kind of choice we think we have doesn't actually exist", you should be able to specify what it would be if it did exist.

Else it's a straw man.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

The firefighters are duty bound to protect the lives, and to a lesser extent the property, of their community.

So what would be the explanation if it was just a bunch of random guys with no social duty to save people from burning buildings?

You asked about firemen so that's a specific case. But I think it holds true in general that when people are members of a community,

... it's how they maintain self respect and the respect of the community. So it's built into their identity. That's partly a matter of one's culture, but it's directly a matter of human nature and genes. Not risking their lives would result in the loss of their personal identity which is derived from fulfilling one's role in society. The point that they are saving an elderly person no longer able to pass on her genes is overshadowed by the cultural understanding that all citizens must be treated as having value. Otherwise our society wouldn't work as well as it presently does. People just wouldn't have as much of a stake in contributing to it. ...

especially regarding the part I bolded. Some people more than others have been taught to have a greater sense of responsibility for society, but it's not necessarily so for every random person. For firemen and firewomen it goes with the profession and is probably why most of them chose to become one in the first place.

A less extreme example would be dedicating one's life to improving the welfare of non-human animals. This is done purely out of compassion for other sentient beings and does nothing to further the replication of one's own DNA, which would rather we use that energy to make stable copies of itself in other humans.

If we used all the energy and resources at our disposal to reproduce we would overpopulate the Earth and create misery and chaos for ourselves and our decendants.

True, but we are definitely not doing everything in our power to maximize the population of organisms that carry our genes. From a social engineering perspective, it could be done a lot more efficiently if we didn't worry about things like respecting the bodily autonomy of women of childbearing age. We have a lot of unused resources and plenty of room on the globe, enough to sustain maybe double our current numbers if we all hunkered down. Once we reached the maximum carrying capacity we could slow down and divert resources to colonizing other planets. From a genetic perspective this strategy would be fantastic.

Democracy is messy and inefficient. China has a certain advantage with their centralized control and things might work out for the best, but they're not exactly respecting a woman's autonomy and have the opposite goal in mind. Totalitarian systems are clearly not the answer. But who knows what the future brings and how we get there? Mankind's dream is to colonize other planets and it clearly has survival as it's goal.

I would argue that it is pointless and cruel. What is inherently valuable about there being more carriers of human DNA?

What's the actual purpose of prolonging the lifespan of our species, or any other, from a moral standpoint?

The answer to the first question is none. To the second the only answer is existence. If you want to know what the purpose of existence is I can't help you. But I also can't answer the question of how the universe (that is, everything that is) came to be. I expect that while we might come to understand it from a more and more objective point of view through science there will always be more questions revealed. I find that accepting these two propositions is necessary in order to avoid the substitution of dualism, fatalism, and mysticism for the rational pursuit of knowledge.

 

[bilby]

But choice is an illusion, caused by the sheer complexity of self aware entities.

With all due respect, your meaning here remains unclear to me, Sir.

For the kind of choice that's available to us to be an illusion there would have to be something else that would qualify as true, genuine choice.

That doesn't follow. There is no 'choice', any more than there is a 'god' or an 'immovable object' or a 'square circle'.

And then, for you to assert that our kind of choice is illusory, you'd have to know what true choice would consist of, and be able to explain it to us. I think.

I think you are wrong.

So, now, pray tell us how you would go about specifying what true choice consists of so that we can all be clear that there's indeed clear water between our kind of choice and true choice (whether or not true choice exists at all).

I cannot, nor need I.

For me, choice is what I do and it's strikingly uncomplicated. I would grant you that whatever I do is one hundred percent the result of what my body does and that what I call my choice can only be whatever my body does. Same thing for my weight, the colour of my eyes, the nice little thoughts I get to enjoy in the privacy of my mind, and so many other things. I'm sure we can easily get confused as to how these things get to exist at all and as to their nature but that doesn't make them unreal somehow. If there is no such a thing as my choices then there's nothing that could qualify as my body weight, the colour of my eyes, or the thoughts I have.

That's a non-sequitur. The non-existence of choice does not imply the non-existence of any of these other things.

And how could I, or you for that matter, possibly think that my (resp. your) thoughts are not the kind of things that exist in any sense at all?
EB

I do not think that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

With all due respect, your meaning here remains unclear to me, Sir.

For the kind of choice that's available to us to be an illusion there would have to be something else that would qualify as true, genuine choice.

That doesn't follow. There is no 'choice', any more than there is a 'god' or an 'immovable object' or a 'square circle'.

You're being needlessly awkward.


Still, look at "square circle". We all understand the idea of square circle as soon as we understand the concept of square and that of circle because it so happen that the idea of square circle is straightforwardly and sufficiently made explicit by the name, "square circle". And from the name alone, therefore, we can infer a rational view as to whether square circles exist or not.

The concept of immovable" object is certainly less clear and we would need some explanation here. Let's ignore this one, the concept of god is more interesting.

The gods of Ancient Greece have never been entirely specified but we know enough of their idiosyncratic specifications and we think we know enough the physical world to conclude that the gods of Ancient Greece don't exist, most of us at any rate.

The god of Christians is equally reasonably well specified to have us decide that he doesn't exist, for example on the ground that the first woman has not been created from the rib of the first man.

But that doesn't help us decide that no god at all exists. Some other god than the Christian one and the Ancient Greek ones might exist. Why ever not?

A god is, according to my good Oxford dictionary, a superhuman being believed to have power over nature among other things. I'm not sure that the definition is really what people mean but let's assume it is. Then, as soon as you accept that laws of nature are fundamental you have to conclude that no being could possibly have power over them and so no supernatural god is possible and so, none exists.

I think that's the proper way to do it. If you disagree, then, please explain.

Anyhow, I can only surmise that you don't know how to specify what 'choice' really means to most human beings. You're assuming conveniently that we must all mean broadly the same thing even though this forum routinely shows how often people disagree about simple concepts and so you think it's enough to ground your claim on your own idea of choice.

I think it's not good enough. Your idea of choice may be different from mine and indeed from that of many if no most people. And in any case, this is a forum where people try to argue their case, not just express how they feel about the issues we discuss.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

I would argue that it is pointless and cruel. What is inherently valuable about there being more carriers of human DNA?

What's the actual purpose of prolonging the lifespan of our species, or any other, from a moral standpoint?

The answer to the first question is none. To the second the only answer is existence. If you want to know what the purpose of existence is I can't help you.

It's a start. There is actually no purpose to this repetitive activity whose main function is to create the need for more of the same repetitive activity. My point in bringing this up is to highlight the lack of a compelling *moral* reason to keep the species going. There may be other reasons, like pride or a desire for genetic immortality. But these aren't rational, nor are they concerned about the interests of others. It would therefore not be a moral failure to simply stop reproducing. With that established, the next step is to ask: if the indefinite continuity of the human species is not morally required, does that make it morally neutral? Couldn't it also be morally wrong?

 

[untermensche]

Humans are not replicators.

They only give their offspring half their genes.

Each individual is a random combination of two genomes.

None are a replication of either parent.

So true, untermensche.

However what I pointed out is that genes are replicators.

In part.

What allows for evolution is that genes are both faithful replicators and also faulty replicators and prone to mistakes.

A faulty replication cannot really be called a replication. It is a new creation.

So even genes themselves and genetic activity are more than just replication.

 

[Treedbear]

The answer to the first question is none. To the second the only answer is existence. If you want to know what the purpose of existence is I can't help you.

It's a start. There is actually no purpose to this repetitive activity whose main function is to create the need for more of the same repetitive activity. My point in bringing this up is to highlight the lack of a compelling *moral* reason to keep the species going. There may be other reasons, like pride or a desire for genetic immortality. But these aren't rational, nor are they concerned about the interests of others. It would therefore not be a moral failure to simply stop reproducing. With that established, the next step is to ask: if the indefinite continuity of the human species is not morally required, does that make it morally neutral? Couldn't it also be morally wrong?

It's not a very good start. As I indicated in my reply to your second question, the purpose of what you refer to as the repetitive activity is existence. That is, the continuation of the species. While the purpose of existence is unknowable. You might as well use the same argument about purposelessness for anything in the world. But that would leave the word "purpose" without any useful meaning. I think that is not what you intend, so you should admit that life, as it exists, can indeed have purpose but that the purpose of existence (ie, all of reality) is unknowable from an objective point of view. (You seem to missing this distinction, and I think that is really our only disagreement here.) It is therefore undiscernable in moral terms. Furthermore, it seems pointless to assume there might be an objective basis for morality that is not contingent on existence, and that existence is contingent on survival.

 

[rousseau]

People have the ability to empathise with the experiences of other living things. One can't argue that this doesn't arise from genetics, but our unique ability to do things at great cost, and with little benefit, seems to set us apart from other animals.

Sometimes, people act only because they want others to be happy, not because of some cost/benefit biological math equation.

Genetically, we're built to do this, but not everyone achieves that state of enlightenment.

A more evolved intelligence sets humans apart. But as an evolved trait I think that the ability to empathize has everything to do with passing on our genetic code. In other words it is about the survival of our species. From this objective perspective it can be seen as a rational choice to sacrifice one's self for the benefit of our loved ones. That includes the lives of our children who, although they carry our genes, are generally replaceable as long as one stays alive. So it isn't so much about the individual as it is about communal genetics. To focus on the former is to embrace the subjective experience rather than achieve an objective understanding. I would think you would appreciate that perspective. The happiness of others is usually, in principle, the least costly and most beneficial thing to do. Whether it's a conscious decision or otherwise.

Dawkins would disagree with you. He explicitly attacks this line of thought, and instead argues from the stand-point that empathy is built to extend to those within our tribe, and via that mechanism our own genes are more likely to propagate because it means we have a protective mechanism to ensure reproduction.

In other words, our empathy isn't built to help others, but because when everyone has empathy they each, individually are more likely to survive. I'd guess this is why you rarely see people extend empathy to those who are far removed from their own communities.

 

[rousseau]

Gene Survival

Replicators love to, uh, replicate. Well, not "love to," they just do. It is, by definition, their nature. The language of desire or goal is from a gene's point of view, as if it had a point of view. Genes love to replicate, being replicators.


Natural Selection is survival of the fittest to survive long enough to generate offspring who could in turn survive and have offspring. Desire to be a grandparent is a built-in "desire" of each and every gene.


Humans are a complicated way for a gene to go from being in a single cell, a zygote, to being in another single cell -- another zygote.


The meaning of life to humans, these Rube Goldberg contraptions' consciousnesses, is a matter of debate.

I was listening to a BBC program on polygamy recently and it was quite interesting when put into this light. They interviewed some of the men who were married to multiple wives, and these guys would say that they didn't at all care about their kids quality of life, but rather having as many children as possible to 'leave a legacy', and 'live forever'.

Real people, actually saying these things with complete sincerity.

I would add, though, that as much as I believe people are able to shirk this dynamic, that finding a partner, and maybe even having kids is a natural part of a normal life. At least I'm coming to believe this more and more. It's not just that we're biologically oriented to want to have kids, but also psychologically oriented.

Being in a relationship is fun and fulfilling. Having kids is fun and fulfilling. Living your entire life alone works for some people, but for most it kind of sucks.

 

[Treedbear]

A more evolved intelligence sets humans apart. But as an evolved trait I think that the ability to empathize has everything to do with passing on our genetic code. In other words it is about the survival of our species. ...

Dawkins would disagree with you. He explicitly attacks this line of thought, and instead argues from the stand-point that empathy is built to extend to those within our tribe, and via that mechanism our own genes are more likely to propagate because it means we have a protective mechanism to ensure reproduction.

I'm not a big fan of most of Dawkins' pronouncements. Although "The Blind Watchmaker" was a revelation for me way back when I was still a confused Roman Catholic. So I had to dig a bit to see what he had to say on empathy:

Transcript:One thing we must strenuously avoid is demonising another set of humans, or treating them as unequal. Quite apart from anything else, this leads to a collapse of empathy. What we need to do is expand the circle of those to whom we feel empathy. Break down the barriers that divide us, the tribalisms of religion, class, race and ideology.

That's all I could read from the transcript, but it seems to indicate that, in his view, what people consider their tribe is mutable. And it seems to be his opinion that at this time in history we need to expand that notion to include all or most of the world's population. But that's something that happened throughout history on a more limited scale. I agree that today it's essential. And since all tribes have the ability to feel empathy it makes sense to say it is indeed an adaptation for human survival. While it's true it might have originated more or less within a limited number of tribes, and even incrementally from one individual within a small tribe (if it could still be considered a tribe without feeling an emotional bond) the overarching effect has been responcible for most of human progress.

In other words, our empathy isn't built to help others, but because when everyone has empathy they each, individually are more likely to survive. I'd guess this is why you rarely see people extend empathy to those who are far removed from their own communities.

Our moral codes are built on empathy for all people. We have a moral responcibility to ourselves as well as to family, friends, community, ... all the way on up. It's just that we are taught that we need to show more concern for those closest to us. Just like the dilemma of being able to choose which group gets hit by trolley, we tend to choose those farther away from us, all else being equal. Proximity is an important consideration because it engenders trust and cooperation. But empathy can still be a powerful factor along with the regret that follows having let the others die. It can be incapacitating for the individual. And empathy can certainly lead to sacrificing one's own life for others.

 

[bilby]

Most people don't feel a sense of empathy for those they do not identify as sharing their values.

But do you know what? Fuck those assholes, who cares what they feel. They need to get in line with those of us who empathise with all of humanity.

 

[Elixir]

Most people don't feel a sense of empathy for those they do not identify as sharing their values.

But do you know what? Fuck those assholes, who cares what they feel. They need to get in line with those of us who empathise with all of humanity.

There are two kinds of people; those who think there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.

 

[Treedbear]

Most people don't feel a sense of empathy for those they do not identify as sharing their values.

But do you know what? Fuck those assholes, who cares what they feel. They need to get in line with those of us who empathise with all of humanity.

This is how I define Empathy:

the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position.

Sympathy is:

1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
2. the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
3. the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.

Sometimes there can be one without the other.

 

[rousseau]

Dawkins would disagree with you. He explicitly attacks this line of thought, and instead argues from the stand-point that empathy is built to extend to those within our tribe, and via that mechanism our own genes are more likely to propagate because it means we have a protective mechanism to ensure reproduction.

I'm not a big fan of most of Dawkins' pronouncements. Although "The Blind Watchmaker" was a revelation for me way back when I was still a confused Roman Catholic. So I had to dig a bit to see what he had to say on empathy:

Transcript:One thing we must strenuously avoid is demonising another set of humans, or treating them as unequal. Quite apart from anything else, this leads to a collapse of empathy. What we need to do is expand the circle of those to whom we feel empathy. Break down the barriers that divide us, the tribalisms of religion, class, race and ideology.

That's all I could read from the transcript, but it seems to indicate that, in his view, what people consider their tribe is mutable. And it seems to be his opinion that at this time in history we need to expand that notion to include all or most of the world's population. But that's something that happened throughout history on a more limited scale. I agree that today it's essential. And since all tribes have the ability to feel empathy it makes sense to say it is indeed an adaptation for human survival. While it's true it might have originated more or less within a limited number of tribes, and even incrementally from one individual within a small tribe (if it could still be considered a tribe without feeling an emotional bond) the overarching effect has been responcible for most of human progress.

In other words, our empathy isn't built to help others, but because when everyone has empathy they each, individually are more likely to survive. I'd guess this is why you rarely see people extend empathy to those who are far removed from their own communities.

Our moral codes are built on empathy for all people. We have a moral responcibility to ourselves as well as to family, friends, community, ... all the way on up. It's just that we are taught that we need to show more concern for those closest to us. Just like the dilemma of being able to choose which group gets hit by trolley, we tend to choose those farther away from us, all else being equal. Proximity is an important consideration because it engenders trust and cooperation. But empathy can still be a powerful factor along with the regret that follows having let the others die. It can be incapacitating for the individual. And empathy can certainly lead to sacrificing one's own life for others.

I agree with all of that, I was just making the subtle distinction that, at least according to Dawkins, animals don't typically evolve for the good of their species. How they evolve may accidentally lead to the species success, but ultimately the reason for adaptations is so the individual can survive and reproduce.

This is an important distinction because it follows that empathy and morality is usually constrained by individual self-interest, and is not unrestrained.

 

[George S]

Most people don't feel a sense of empathy for those they do not identify as sharing their values.

But do you know what? Fuck those assholes, who cares what they feel. They need to get in line with those of us who empathise with all of humanity.

We are a tribal species. In almost everything we do tribal success is a goal. Of course, no one can be a member of the tribe of all. There is no conflict between tribes when there is just one tribe. Conflict -- us vs. them -- is what it means to be tribal.
At first I am in a tribe as a very junior member. We learn the way to be a member of our tribe. We find out what things are taboo within the tribe. Normally theft, assault, and murder are forbidden. Later I am a member, initiated by some ritual. Later still I am an elder -- a walking encyclopedia for the tribe. Women often married to a member of a nearby tribe that looked like us and spoke the same language. Women changed tribe. Communism can work if the tribe is two to four hundred -- everyone must know everyone else. Original tribes were extended families. We form multiple tribes today, multiple group identities. Identity politics is tribe vs. tribe.
Each brand of Christianity, a tribe, each brand of Islam, each kind of Buddhism, a tribe.
Are you a fan of the sports team of the town in which you live? They are mercenaries hired to fight for our city-tribe.
When you take statistics by race, tribes are generated.
When the population is divided by any metric it can lead to tribalism -- groupism.
We like and feel empathy for those who are like us. I empathize with nerds much more than jocks. I like pleasant conversation with an intelligent person. There is an automatic built-in tribalism that subconsciously makes an instant judgement as to whether that person over there is like me.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's a start. There is actually no purpose to this repetitive activity whose main function is to create the need for more of the same repetitive activity. My point in bringing this up is to highlight the lack of a compelling *moral* reason to keep the species going. There may be other reasons, like pride or a desire for genetic immortality. But these aren't rational, nor are they concerned about the interests of others. It would therefore not be a moral failure to simply stop reproducing. With that established, the next step is to ask: if the indefinite continuity of the human species is not morally required, does that make it morally neutral? Couldn't it also be morally wrong?

It's not a very good start. As I indicated in my reply to your second question, the purpose of what you refer to as the repetitive activity is existence. That is, the continuation of the species. While the purpose of existence is unknowable. You might as well use the same argument about purposelessness for anything in the world. But that would leave the word "purpose" without any useful meaning. I think that is not what you intend, so you should admit that life, as it exists, can indeed have purpose but that the purpose of existence (ie, all of reality) is unknowable from an objective point of view. (You seem to missing this distinction, and I think that is really our only disagreement here.) It is therefore undiscernable in moral terms. Furthermore, it seems pointless to assume there might be an objective basis for morality that is not contingent on existence, and that existence is contingent on survival.

Full disclosure here, I thought this was the evolution and morality thread when I posted that. But this is still the morals and principles forum, so it's fair game.

The first thing I want to say is that you're wrong that "the purpose of existence is unknowable". A purpose is not something that exists anywhere in the universe except in the brains of purpose-givers. There may be something like a function, which is what I suggested by saying the only function of perpetual reproduction is to enable more perpetual reproduction. But that's different from a purpose, which implies intention. Nothing, then, has any objective purpose.

In moral terms, we need not concern ourselves with whether our morality is "contingent on existence" or not. Morality is, at minimum, taking the interests of others into account. We need morality because life is full of conflict, and this conflict stems fully and without exception from conscious existence itself. So, morality is a problem-solving tool, like medicine. Just because medicine is contingent on illness doesn't mean we should try to make sure never to eradicate illness, otherwise medicine won't make sense anymore; the goal is for medicine not to make sense anymore! The same can be said of morality, in my view. The best case scenario is one where we stop thinking there is some reason to preserve morality for its own sake.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I agree with all of that, I was just making the subtle distinction that, at least according to Dawkins, animals don't typically evolve for the good of their species. How they evolve may accidentally lead to the species success, but ultimately the reason for adaptations is so the individual can survive and reproduce.

This is an important distinction because it follows that empathy and morality is usually constrained by individual self-interest, and is not unrestrained.

I can't ignore the subtle implication in your phrasing that I said they intend to evolve for the good of their species. That's certainly not what I meant to say. I expect you'll agree that there can be nothing intentional about it when gene modifications occur more or less at random, or accidentally. But the process of evolution also requires the sorting by natural selection, which is anything but random. By the same token they don't evolve for the good of the individual either. I don't mean to be difficult but I need to point out that individual animals don't evolve. Evolution takes place over many generations. There are many types of adaptations that don't benefit the individual as far as mating success goes, but which benefit the individual's community, such as when overpopulation would lead to disaster. And whether we're discussing biological evolution and genetic codes, or cultural behavior and the evolution of moral codes, aberrations occur that might be great for the individual but prove to be destructive to the larger group and are suppressed by epigenetics and ethical norms, respectively.

I'm pretty sure Dawkins' focus was on the perpetuation of the genome, which to me plainly means the species. The trouble I have with Dawkins is his provocative use of phrases like "the selfish gene" which seems to imply that the genome has some individual intent. There is so much more to survival than the ability of the individual, or even the species as a whole, to produce offspring.

It's not a very good start. As I indicated in my reply to your second question, the purpose of what you refer to as the repetitive activity is existence. That is, the continuation of the species. While the purpose of existence is unknowable. You might as well use the same argument about purposelessness for anything in the world. But that would leave the word "purpose" without any useful meaning. I think that is not what you intend, so you should admit that life, as it exists, can indeed have purpose but that the purpose of existence (ie, all of reality) is unknowable from an objective point of view. (You seem to missing this distinction, and I think that is really our only disagreement here.) It is therefore undiscernable in moral terms. Furthermore, it seems pointless to assume there might be an objective basis for morality that is not contingent on existence, and that existence is contingent on survival.

Full disclosure here, I thought this was the evolution and morality thread when I posted that. But this is still the morals and principles forum, so it's fair game.

The first thing I want to say is that you're wrong that "the purpose of existence is unknowable". A purpose is not something that exists anywhere in the universe except in the brains of purpose-givers. There may be something like a function, which is what I suggested by saying the only function of perpetual reproduction is to enable more perpetual reproduction. But that's different from a purpose, which implies intention. Nothing, then, has any objective purpose.

We differ on the definition of purpose. I don't use it to imply intent. I use it more broadly to describe the logical outcome of some activity or set of circumstances. You can modify it by saying "intended purpose" or there can be a implied intent depending on the context of its use. Your second objection is a matter of epistemology. Does anything exist beyond one's own conception of it? For rational purposes we assume there is. Purpose can be deduced in the various relationships we perceive within the reality around us. We call this science, of course. The goal of scientific advancement is an ever more objective perspective of understanding. We kind of reach the limits of understanding when we get to the metaphysics of existence itself. Some folks turn to God as an answer. But that's like putting one's finger in the dike. Your kind of stuck in one spot. We need the freedom to move around within the confines of the dike. So to preserve a useful concept like discovering purpose we need to recognize there are limits to where it can be applied and that freedom is never absolute. There needn't be an absolutely objective truth in order for objectivity to have meaning. Despite what that idiot Plato had to say.

In moral terms, we need not concern ourselves with whether our morality is "contingent on existence" or not. Morality is, at minimum, taking the interests of others into account. We need morality because life is full of conflict, and this conflict stems fully and without exception from conscious existence itself. So, morality is a problem-solving tool, like medicine. Just because medicine is contingent on illness doesn't mean we should try to make sure never to eradicate illness, otherwise medicine won't make sense anymore; the goal is for medicine not to make sense anymore! The same can be said of morality, in my view. The best case scenario is one where we stop thinking there is some reason to preserve morality for its own sake.

I explained why one shouldn't seek objectivity beyond the realm of reality. But I'm willing to take it to the very limit in order to resolve the big questions and contradictions that have bothered mankind for millenia. And when it comes to morality I'm not willing to call it completely baseless and arbitrary. I try to be as objective as I need to be. It's similar to taking on the perspective of studying mankind as if it were a colony of ants. There must be some reason they run around aimlessly all day. It's the only way to overcome the subjective haze of living. I can then generalize the concept of morality as if it were a science. See how it applies to other species and how moral behavior can be interpretted differently depending on intellectual capability, as well as other attributes. What I find is that conscious choice doesn't necessarily enter into social conduct. There are levels of behavioral control set well below consciousness to the point where it is at most simply a matter of degree. From this point it's easy enough to realize there are larger forces at work that effect how moral decisions are made. Life, in particular is governed by the process of evolution. And stepping beyond life itself, I look at reality across the cosmos and see that all things can eventually be explained by a process of survival and existence. Like meaning and purpose. One leads into the other, because how else could it be?

 

[rousseau]

I can't ignore the subtle implication in your phrasing that I said they intend to evolve for the good of their species. That's certainly not what I meant to say. I expect you'll agree that there can be nothing intentional about it when gene modifications occur more or less at random, or accidentally. But the process of evolution also requires the sorting by natural selection, which is anything but random. By the same token they don't evolve for the good of the individual either. I don't mean to be difficult but I need to point out that individual animals don't evolve. Evolution takes place over many generations. There are many types of adaptations that don't benefit the individual as far as mating success goes, but which benefit the individual's community, such as when overpopulation would lead to disaster. And whether we're discussing biological evolution and genetic codes, or cultural behavior and the evolution of moral codes, aberrations occur that might be great for the individual but prove to be destructive to the larger group and are suppressed by epigenetics and ethical norms, respectively.

I'm pretty sure Dawkins' focus was on the perpetuation of the genome, which to me plainly means the species. The trouble I have with Dawkins is his provocative use of phrases like "the selfish gene" which seems to imply that the genome has some individual intent. There is so much more to survival than the ability of the individual, or even the species as a whole, to produce offspring.

Not really what I meant but I see your point. I understand that there is nothing involving 'intent' when it comes to evolution.

The point I was making is that adaptations that become consistent throughout a species do so for the individual, not the greater species as a whole. While evolution occurs at a species level, it doesn't care about the species itself. Those members of the species who have genes that allow them to interact with their environment effectively are more likely to pass on those genes, and so if empathy is one of those causes, it will spread throughout the species. But that empathy does not exist for the purpose of extending the species, it exists for the purpose of extending the individual within the context of the species.

When Dawkins uses the phrase 'the selfish gene' I'm not sure he's actually anthropomorphizing genes but instead using the phrase as an analogy to help people understand how they work.

Individually, a gene that is successful will perpetuate itself, and genes that are the most successful are almost universal aspects of the each domain of life. Consider something like eyes.. almost every animal has them. This is because these genes are so enormously successful that animals cannot exist without them. But the genes for eyes couldn't care less about any of the organisms other genes, just that they continue existing.. hence 'selfish' gene.

In practice, genes don't actually have intent, but the analogy helps paint a picture of how they work. And the over-arching point is that the prime unit of selection is actually the gene, and not the organism.

 

[Treedbear]

I can't ignore the subtle implication in your phrasing that I said they intend to evolve for the good of their species. That's certainly not what I meant to say. I expect you'll agree that there can be nothing intentional about it when gene modifications occur more or less at random, or accidentally. But the process of evolution also requires the sorting by natural selection, which is anything but random. By the same token they don't evolve for the good of the individual either. I don't mean to be difficult but I need to point out that individual animals don't evolve. Evolution takes place over many generations. There are many types of adaptations that don't benefit the individual as far as mating success goes, but which benefit the individual's community, such as when overpopulation would lead to disaster. And whether we're discussing biological evolution and genetic codes, or cultural behavior and the evolution of moral codes, aberrations occur that might be great for the individual but prove to be destructive to the larger group and are suppressed by epigenetics and ethical norms, respectively.

I'm pretty sure Dawkins' focus was on the perpetuation of the genome, which to me plainly means the species. The trouble I have with Dawkins is his provocative use of phrases like "the selfish gene" which seems to imply that the genome has some individual intent. There is so much more to survival than the ability of the individual, or even the species as a whole, to produce offspring.

Not really what I meant but I see your point. I understand that there is nothing involving 'intent' when it comes to evolution.

The point I was making is that adaptations that become consistent throughout a species do so for the individual, not the greater species as a whole. While evolution occurs at a species level, it doesn't care about the species itself. Those members of the species who have genes that allow them to interact with their environment effectively are more likely to pass on those genes, and so if empathy is one of those causes, it will spread throughout the species. But that empathy does not exist for the purpose of extending the species, it exists for the purpose of extending the individual within the context of the species.

It's not necessarily the case that a genetic change must somehow improve the reproductive probability of the individual. It's more important that the long term survival of the genetic code is assured. So I might have a new gene combination that leads to a lesser chance of producing children, but if I somehow manage to do so anyway that same genetic code might enhance my childrens' abilities. Or my grandchildrens', etc. So the effect is expressed across a broader segment of the population in a more species oriented way. This would tend to restrain any genetic tendency for especially selfish types of behavior that produce morally intolerant acts and lead to the desolution of society. That said, societies tend toward a balance between altruistic and egoistic personality types in a dynamic equilibrium.

When Dawkins uses the phrase 'the selfish gene' I'm not sure he's actually anthropomorphizing genes but instead using the phrase as an analogy to help people understand how they work.

Individually, a gene that is successful will perpetuate itself, and genes that are the most successful are almost universal aspects of the each domain of life. Consider something like eyes.. almost every animal has them. This is because these genes are so enormously successful that animals cannot exist without them. But the genes for eyes couldn't care less about any of the organisms other genes, just that they continue existing.. hence 'selfish' gene.

In practice, genes don't actually have intent, but the analogy helps paint a picture of how they work. And the over-arching point is that the prime unit of selection is actually the gene, and not the organism.

If that's what Dawkins means then I shouldn't have given his ideas the benefit of the doubt. I assumed "the selfish gene" was simply a way to sell books by using a provocative title. As an instructive analogy I think it fails because it has intelligent folks like you utilizing the idea that genes "couldn't care less" about other genes, as if you were describing the attitude one person has towards another. You can say that was not your intent, but I see it all the time in discussions and I think it only increases the ability of people to rationalize selfish behavior. Both self-interested behavior and the ability to reproduce are only small parts of what drives the process of evolution in cultural and biological systems.