Materialism and Moral Clarity
| October 5, 2009 | Posted by DonaldM under Ethics, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science |
Its been fascinating to read the discussion started by Barry Arrington that seems to expose some critical holes in the moral thinking of materialism. The discussion seems to range from justifying the existence of pornography to denigrating religious organizations that proselytize as they offer help and assistance to those in need. And, as Barry pointed out, the discussion is 41 posts in (actually as of now 53 posts), and still no materialist has condemned the views of the poster called Seversky on moral grounds. Perhaps having to decide between helping women in poverty by buying pornography or by funding a religious charity is too morally complex a choice for clarity for a materialist, so I want to offer an alternative.
So, here’s a simple thought experiment for any of the materialists (or philosophical naturalists, or atheists) among our number here at Uncommon Descent. Perhaps this simple thought experiment can bring some clarity to moral questions from a materialist persepctive.
Here goes: You’re in a large city and walk up to a a busy street corner. Heavy traffic is whizzing by in both directions on the street you need to cross. As you prepare to cross, you notice next to you a smallish, frail, elderly woman, carrying some shopping bags, who also needs to cross the street, but is quite obviously nervous and frightened of the attempt. You now have 3 options: 1) you can ignore her completely and just go about your business; 2)you can push her into the traffic; 3) you can assist her to get safely across the street. The moral question is, what is the right thing to do and why is it the right thing to do (that is to say, how can we know that is the right thing to do)?
72 Responses to Materialism and Moral Clarity
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Oleary @ 62
Darwin was almost certainly a racist by modern standards and would have a tough time keeping any job if he were alive in 2009 and shared his views publically. The statment about gorillas is simply false and can be shown so with modern genetics. Not sure what else you want me to say. A wrong view held by Charles Darwin is a wrong view.
What is your overall argument about “Darwinists” not being able to help poorly behaved kids? Kids misbehave because Darwin was a racist? Kids misbehave because the Theory of Evolution (like general relativity or quantum mechanics) is not a good guide to child rearing?
Temphut at 62,
My question is whether Darwinists have actually admitted and disowned the racism (and the consequent eugenics).
I don’t need anyone to explain to me that it isn’t true.
It’s the buckets of whitewash that concern me, not the condemned, rotting structure.
#61
But can we all agree that the underlying incident that is the basis for this discussion shows that the NSF has lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority?
Because 7 employees out of 1200 have been found guilty of misconduct related to pornography? On this basis there would be very few institutions including many churches that have lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority.
Correction to #64
That should read:
Because 7 employees out of 1200 have been found guilty of misconduct related to pornography? On this basis there would be very many institutions including many churches that have lost all credibility to speak as any kind of authority.
Mark Frank,
Of course it depends on which 7, and what positions they hold, what other poor decisions they’ve made, how much money and time and resources have been lost, etc., if it is the upper echelons and not the functionaries and janitors, then yes, I think we have a right to discredit them.
Clive Hayden, there is a similar big problem here in Canada with “human rights” commissions.
Some employees and contractors were going on the Internet, pretending to be Nazis, to entrap other citizens.
There is no significant Nazi threat in Canada. Nazis here are assumed to be the buffoons of Hogan’s Heroes, if anyone even remembers the show, let alone the Nazis.
In one case, the CHRC “snitches” abused a private citizen’s e-mail address.
Meanwhile, there are “death to the Jews” marches in the streets of Toronto, and … crickets chirp, as far as the establishment is concerned.
I have linked to this outrage at the Post-Darwinist frequently.
This situation is analogous to the NSF problem: The fact that some people are allowed to get away with outrages in a publicly funded organization tells you something about the character of the organization. Usually, the organization needs a change of leadership, at least in my experience.
Like,why did NSF people think they could be surfing porn at WORK – and billing the office? Incredible.
If they don’t have anything to do that would interfere with their porn plans, maybe either their positions or the whole organization should not exist.
From a biological perspective, I am a failure as a human being. I have a fitness of zero, primarily because my sentimental gene keeps screwing over my selfish gene.
When you get down to the cold, hard scientific facts of the situation, I exist to further my genes. Any other “purpose” to my life is illusory, is it not? To be sure, over many generations, evolution has also given me feelings for my family, but these exist to assist in furthering my genes. In my particular case, however, those feelings end up being counter-productive to the purpose for which they were originally intended.
You see, I found out a number of years ago that my wife has poor egg quality and that it is nearly impossible that we will conceive children of our own. If it were not for the sentimentality with which evolution has burdened me, this information might have prompted me to leave my wife and seek out a more fertile mate in order to propagate my genes.
It gets worse. For sentimental reasons, we adopted a young boy. His blond hair and boisterous chemistry play havok with my own sentimental chemistry so that, even though I know that I am investing energy in propagating someone else’s genes instead of my own, I can’t seem to stop myself.
So, now I have quite the conundrum. Though my sentimental gene is dragging down my fitness, my intellectual gene has evolved to the point that I recognize that my sentimental gene is illusory–or at least that it is not functioning in the way that it should. Given that my primary purpose is to reproduce my genes, shouldn’t I ignore this sentimentality and leave my wife and child? Or maybe I shouldn’t ignore it, because my sentimental gene has become detrimental and should be culled from the gene pool as a result? On the other hand, that would also cull out the intellectual gene that allows me to see my sentimentality for what it is.
Naturalistic morality is just so confusing for me. Can someone give me a hand here?
O’Leary at 62
“My question is whether Darwinists have actually admitted and disowned the racism (and the consequent eugenics).”
I have a tough time understanding what you want from whom. If by Darwinists, you mean people who think evolution is a largely correct scientific idea then I am one. So in that case I am not sure what you want me to do. I am not a racist and never have been. Is that enough? What else do I have to do? I also think other correct scientific theories were first discovered by racists. Do I need to disown their racism as well? Can I do this all together or do I need to disown each seperately?
If by Darinist you mean followers of the prophet Charles Darwin, I don’t think they have disowned his racism because I don’t think they exist.
Upright Biped,
“The drive to survive?
I have wondered; what are the exact coordinates within the genome that causes the chemical reactions formerly known as living organisms to wish to persist, as oppossed to seeking stasis as the stately rocks, or heat traveling to cold?”
Ha, ha, I cannot answer that as I don’t believe that to be the case. I play devil’s advocate here at times when I think the Other Side is being misunderstood.
In this case, I am referring to more than the drive to survive in an individual. I was pointing out that in the Darwinian system, life is the one imperative, and that includes life in every sort of success. So it is not strange for the desire to help others to have evolved, and for a moral system to evolve.
But I agree with your points because I don’t think matter is an adequate explanation for these drives. And I have noted that many of the Darwinists here have seemed strangely incurious about the origin of their moral sense. This is truly an interesting question.
@avocationist
Yes, but in the Darwinian system our intellect has also evolved to the point where we recognize the “imperative” and “desire” and “moral system” for what they really are: random occurrences that were selected for their benefit to our fitness.
So, as enlightened believers in the Darwinian system, what do we do when we realize that our particular fitness would be better served by operating counter to those desires and morals? What imperative do I follow, given the situation I’ve described in my previous post? And why?
Phinehas,
I don’t really have an answer. Perhaps some traits trump personal fulfillment in reproduction. As I said, even though life is the imperative under the Darwinian system, it is a mistake to think that means no more than reproduction, no matter how nasty, brutish and short. If all it meant was reproduction at any cost, we would not be able to live fulfilled lives.