1

The 'moral implications' of the origin of the species is the same old same old. Reading more into a scientific theory than what's really there. The same thing was done with Newton's Theory of Gravity and its supposed support of diesm. At best Newton's theory was not inconsistent with the view of God as an absent watchmaker.

Likewise neither ID nor evolution/ambiogensis have any moral implications. True evolution is not inconsistent with a nihilistic 'God is dead' world view. Believe it or not, neither is ID. What if life was designed? There's nothing in that statement to imply that the designer was good, caring or indifferent to his creations. Quite frankly, we don't care about sheep once they serve the pupose for which we breed them.

If ID could be proved that says nothing about how a designer would want us to behave or moral beliefs he would want us to have beyond any behavior 'hard coded' into our design.

Both cases are examples of reading more into a theory than what is really there. It is a good illustration of why philosophy should be very careful attaching too much imporantce to scientific theories. It's not the only one though....plenty of post-modernists have made fools of themselves arguing that Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' has moral implications & implies some form of moral relevance.

2

Whenever people put forth Einstein's theory as a defense of moral relativism, I very quickly walk away so I don't catch "The Dumb".

I think some science has moral implications. I think that if you believe our morals and ethics evolved from completely naturalistic means, you end up with meaningless morals. I don't see how you can say something is moral or immoral (such as child torture) without an external law giver.

So riddle me this: Why is it wrong to torture children, from a totally naturalistic point of view?

3

Ever try Kant Phil? There's a huge amount of writing attempting to show moral reasoning as a logical secquence. If morality is 'logical' in the same way that mathematics is then you have a naturalistic explanation of it. The theory of evolution doesn't say that morality evolves anymore than mathematics does. At best it can only get you to the point that some living creatures are able to form moral judgements or comprehend mathematics.

4

Surely you can now point us to an effective, humanitarian, Kantian society now Boonton.

After all, the existence of German philosophy on a naturalistic ethic implies its practical applicability and objective truth.

5

Who needs better ideas when you can simply have better marketing?

Funny, but that seems to be the MO of the delusion-based crowd.

6

"Surely you can now point us to an effective, humanitarian, Kantian society now Boonton. "

I can assure you that I am unable to do such a thing as you are unable to point at an effective, humanitarian, Christian society.

7

Mine is easy. The United States.

8

Re: The Origin of Species

Why can God NOT be the power and purpose behind "the universe as an endless lottery of meaningless events"? That is, is God not powerful enough to have created the world in the manner identified by Darwin?

Perhaps the creation story was given to people with very limited understanding of the scientific world to give them a way to understand that God was behind it all. Just like us, these people would be desperate for more answers to explain the world around them, but how accepted would the concepts of natural selection have been? Could they even have been understood?

Given that we are much more mature in our understanding of the scientific world than the people of Moses' age, why should we not be willing to expand our ideas about God as we learn more about the world?

We have decided to give God credit for creating a round, as opposed to a flat, world; so, why not give God credit for designing a world with process of natural selection?

9

Actually, Balaam's ass would be a good symbol for the modern Demcratic Party. Balaam beat the hell out of him every time he tried to move Balaam out of harm's way and when he spoke sense to him, Balaam argued with his own ass.

10

Ever try Kant?

At the risk of sounding like an arrogant 22-year-old, I'm going to say that I find Kant's philosophy to be ultimately unsatisfying. I understand what he was trying to do, but I think the whole Categorical Imperative is just an exercise in question-begging. I think it's a failure.

I mean, at the root, Kant is saying we should act in such a way that if everyone did the same thing, the result would be good/consistent/desireable and that human beings should be treated as ends in themselves. (Gross oversimplification, but then, Kant was always a bit too wordy anyway). He tries to conjure morals from pure reason, but he comes up short, in my estimation. He keeps giving us a "should" and "ought" and even "must" and notions of "goodness". He begs the question, "'Should' according to who?".

Kant would say one man should not murder because if all men murdered, everyone would be dead. The question is, so what? By what standard is that bad? If everyone lies, then no one would believe anyone. Again, by what standard is this bad?

Kant never gives us a true moral standard, he merely dances around it.

His lack of true morality is made obvious when he was stymied by the question "If lying is wrong, then you can't lie to a murderer if he asks you where his next victim is". He went on to argue that you have to tell the murderer the truth because you are required to act based solely on your action, not on the supposed outcomes. He essentially argues that it's better to tell the truth to the murderer because truth is good and the murder of the victim is not relevant.

Kant made a valient attempt at creating a Law without a Lawgiver, but he fell short.

This is one of my sources for the above info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Equivalence_of_the_formulas

So again I pose the question, by what naturalistic means can you say that the torture of children is immoral/wrong?

Instead of name-dropping, give me a an argument.

11

"He went on to argue that you have to tell the murderer the truth because you are required to act based solely on your action, not on the supposed outcomes."

Interestingly I had a devout 7th Day Adventist Friend who held the same position. She felt that by not telling the truth you were showing a lack of trust in God that he would make things turn out the way they should. She did concede that she wouldn't hold it against anyone if they did lie since it was a pretty tough test of faith.

I wasn't tossing Kant out there because I agree with everything he said. Only as an illustration that naturalism doesn't automatically imply 'anything goes'.

12

Crudely....

Either you're acting/believing with justification, or you're being blown about by circumstances. If only the latter, you're not a cause but an effect, not a person, but a slave. Others can't trust you. You can't even trust yourself; who you are will depend only on where you are and whatever happens to be going on around you (e.g., whatever's the latest item on Bush's crisis-manufacturing agenda -- missile defense, energy, Iraq, same-sex marriage, Kerry, Social Security).

When you surrender your agency, you surrender responsibility. You therefore surrender your capacity for moral action, whatever that may be.

Your actions and beliefs can be justified, epistemologically and morally, only if they are based on good reasons.

First conclusion: you can be moral only if your actions and beliefs are directed by reason.

Second conclusion: justification is a necessary condition for moral action (whatever that may be).

But, if something is to qualify as a reason, and not only an excuse, explanation or self-serving rationalization, it can't just be a reason for you.

It has to have the potential to count as reason for anybody. (e.g., When I was young, my older brother used to give my parents X reason why he should get to use the car; but then when I used X reason some other time, he'd pooh-pooh it and offer Y reason instead, and so on.... He would've made a good lawyer.)

Third conclusion: Since good reasons can't just be good reasons for you, they can' refer to you or be driven by your particular (naturally produced) desires, fears or circumstances.

Fourth conclusion: The practical rule that you use to justify your maxim in any particular situation has to be devoid of empirical content.

The only practical rule devoid of empirical content is the categorical imperative: only act in such a way that you can will your maxim to be a universal law (good for everyone, regardless of circumstances, and not just good for you because you want such and such).

That's what the CI has to do with morality, very, very roughly.

Amy

13

Oh -- and the Groundwork is an exercise in practical, not pure, reason.

Best,

14

Looking forward to more info about the book plans, Joe :D

I'll buy it.

15

Joe,

re "Catholics, Evangelicals, and Just War --"

I'll take a look at the links to the other sites on how Just War Theory applies to the Iraq war. I'm busy now but will do so in a day or two.

Regards,

16

"I can assure you that I am unable to do such a thing as you are unable to point at an effective, humanitarian, Christian society." -- Boonton

"Mine is easy. The United States." -- John

And if you lived in Germany in the 1930's, you'd have said "Germany." (Ergo, by the earlier summary of Kant's argument, you're an effect, not a cause, a slave, not a person, and, through arrogance and intellectual laziness, you have surrendered your capacity for moral action. Isn't philosophy fun?)