GeorgeW Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Habilis and erectus are posited to vocalize and I would think they did not have language instinct. Could it be that rights also had such an evolution? Mike I would not locate the evolution of inherent dignity solely in the genetics and physicality but also metaphysically. (Is spell check turned off?) Could not the metaphysical universe evolve - co-evolve? Just where along the evolutionary tree we acquired the language instinct is highly speculative. Could the metaphysical universe biologically evolve? Yes, if it conferred some advantage in natural selection.No, if no selective advantage is passed on. Morality does confer some selective advantages to a social animal. Would respect for human rights do so as well? I don't know, but can imagine someone making such a case. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 The Cyrus Cylinder (539 B.C.) Paul, my searches suggest the translation here is not generally accepted anymore. From Wiki Similarly, United States President George W. Bush referred in a 2006 speech to Cyrus declaring that his people had "the right to worship God in freedom"[42][43] – a statement made nowhere in the text of the cylinder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Could the metaphysical universe biologically evolve? Could the metaphysical universe co-evolve with the biological universe? doesn't a process theology suggest something like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Personally I don't see a difference between co-evolution of biology and religion culture or working from "I value myself so I will value others". If we didn't value ourselves we'd have no appreciation for valuing others, would we? I don't think evolution is best viewed solely through the eyes of the selfish gene. In my mind the later option was the selfish gene speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 The physicality and the metaphysicality of human rights and morality - I offer Jonathan Haidt's Moral foundations in its latest version. Follow the link for more info. The first two foundations are found in the youngest children. If they are evolved moral understandings, is there something metaphysically behind that or are the children participating in that metaphysical space? Because these were developed from surveys of people around the world, whose responses were grouped by Haidt and others the evolutionary connections are speculative, I think. My first impresssion is to agree in general. 1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. 2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. 3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. 4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. 5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. 6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JenellYB Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Could the metaphysical universe co-evolve with the biological universe? doesn't a process theology suggest something like this? Perhaps, further, didn't co-evolve per se, but are both components arewell as manifestions of one unfied evolution. Ie not as separate things but as parts of one same thing? Jenell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Mike, Guys with certain genes that predispose them to behavior beneficial the group get more girls and produce more offspring than those who have a genetic predisposition to anti-social behavior. Over time, this becomes the dominate gene pool. Natural selection. I think this addresses the whys and hows I talked about, but it doesn't touch what, if anything, morality is. I think it could posited that human rights and their categories evolved are not facets of objective behavior. I think we're speaking, roughly, about the evolution of the psyche or soul. The metaphysical co-evolving with the biological, as you suggested. I find this appealing. As far as language goes, I think the ability to use language -- to experience meaning -- lies beyond the physical facts. The physics of who and what we are as human beings is not the whole story. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Jenell, If everything emerging is the embodiment of Christ, God's first word of love, then a unified understanding would work. (after Ilia Delio) If God made space for us - other - to be in relationship with - then two perhaps at least to help us make a few distinctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I think this addresses the whys and hows I talked about, but it doesn't touch what, if anything, morality is. What is morality? I would accept the Oxford Dictionary definition: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 As far as language goes, I think the ability to use language -- to experience meaning -- lies beyond the physical facts. The physics of who and what we are as human beings is not the whole story. The language instinct isn't about the physical mechanisms for language production. It is about the grammar (syntax, phonology, etc.). Many animals can produce sounds for communication and many do. What humans have is the machinery to process complicated language, i.e. the grammar. This is what is called Universal Grammar which is the fundamentals that each of us are born with. Then, when exposed to language, the child starts setting the parameters of the particular language they hear. Some of the theories about the 'moral instinct' are patterned on what has been learned about language acquistion. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Universal Grammar Is this Chomsky? Is he's everybody's favorite these. days? which is perhaps irrelevant to the discussion. I put this out because I am having problems with definitions here. What if morality was being able to make decisions along these spectrums or about these subjects. Is the list not appropriate or is it incomplete? 1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. 2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. 3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. 4) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. 5) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. 6) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. or more basic Does morality operate out the two human rights: dignity and equality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Is this Chomsky? Is he's everybody's favorite these. days? Yes, this is Chomsky and then many who followed. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Does morality operate out the two human rights: dignity and equality? I am thinking it may be more like the Golden Rule (which is a test, not a moral principle). I think I have dignity as a human; therefore, others should have it as well and, consequently, it is universal. Is there a commonality with 'grace', i.e. not earned, but something we inherently have because we exist as humans? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 a right is an attribute? and morality a criteria for evaluating behavior? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 "a right is an attribute?" Yeah, I think maybe it is. It is an attribute of being human. Did this exist in our consciousness before the Enlightenment? Was it recognized in Judaism and/or Christianity? "and morality a criteria for evaluating behavior?" Hmm. I am not so sure about this. A moral act is one that complies with certain principles. Is 'thou shalt not kill' a criterion or a principle? George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Hi George, The language instinct isn't about the physical mechanisms for language production. It is about the grammar (syntax, phonology, etc.). Many animals can produce sounds for communication and many do. This is no doubt true. But language (in the mindful, not computational sense of formal rules for symbol manipulation) requires the ability to find meaning and implication in things, which goes beyond syntax. What is morality? I would accept the Oxford Dictionary definition: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. I would agree, but this is nonetheless circular. Right and wrong, good and bad, are already moral categories, and cannot be used to explain what morality is, since they are part of what morality already means. Peace, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I personally believe that morality is derived from the intrinsic meaningfulness of our existence. On this understanding, it would be just as true to say that meaning originates in us as we originate in meaning. I think existence, subjectivity, and meaning are all connected, and are true to the very bottomless bottom, and that at no point does one make an ontological transition into meaningless, objective existence. I don't think morality is entirely reducible to physical evolution, because then we should never come to wonder about "the truth" of our intuitions and categories; we should have no concept of and no concern for "the truth" (i.e. no existential awareness of reality), it should have no consequence on our lives or psyche if we discovered that it was the truth that all our moral intuitions are illusions constituted by the behavior of meaningless, physical aggregates. But we're not like that. We're interested in truth, meaning, and reality. I don't think this can be reduced to programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 George: Is there a commonality with 'grace', i.e. not earned, but something we inherently have because we exist as humans? I think so. Mike: We're interested in truth, meaning, and reality. Mike, I'm not sure that evolution rules out truth, meaning and reality. Praxis is praxis. The evolving universe is that which wonders - or something like that. I am frustrated because it seems so hard to nail down rights and something for morality to be about. first some categories which may aid thinking later and then some specificity. I haven't studied this paper but what I thought would help is to consider that the many rights we might find and associated moral principles MIGHT need some classifying while we wrestle with them. The "Big Three" of Morality (Autonomy, Community, Divinity) and the "Big Three" Explanations of Suffering. Are rights grounded in attributes? Autonomy I exist. Can we say that generally continuing to exist is a "right"? (Unless voluntarily giving it up) Does not a long discussion about morality fall out of this simple "attribute->right" transaction? What then if we say I eat I breathe I smell, taste, see, hear, touch I can learn, think, create and extend these attributes to rights to continue being able to do those things? Is the inherency in the attribute? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimYoungman Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Guys with certain genes that predispose them to behavior beneficial the group get more girls and produce more offspring than those who have a genetic predisposition to anti-social behavior. Over time, this becomes the dominate gene pool. Natural selection. I find that hard to reconcile whith my observations of the "chick drawing power" of some of our sportsmen who demonstrate rather anti-social and immoral behviour both on and off field. Is USA so different from Australia? —Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I find that hard to reconcile whith my observations of the "chick drawing power" of some of our sportsmen who demonstrate rather anti-social and immoral behviour both on and off field. Is USA so different from Australia? In the U.S., if a player kills an opponent, we suspend them for for several games. If it is clearly intentional and malicious, they are suspended without pay for an entire season. We are more progressive here. More seriously, sport is often a simulation of war. What tribe doesn't value young men with strength, speed and agility who can defend their honor and lives? Also, these attributes are a signal of health and virility. When I was young, the nerdy guys with asthma and thick glasses didn't do so well with the 'chicks' (well, until later when they invented Windows or the iPhone). George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimYoungman Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 What tribe doesn't value young men with strength, speed and agility who can defend their honor and lives? Also, these attributes are a signal of health and virility. … and morality?? I do like the implication that Windows and iPhone are responsible for an increase in the Nerdish gene pool. —Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 I do like the implication that Windows and iPhone are responsible for an increase in the Nerdish gene pool. These people are not having more babies but less. Too bad? Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 What are these rights we seek the source of? I am having a problem unpackiing "rights". Earlier I wondered if rights arise from attributes such as " I exist", "I eat to live" Here is another way to classify rights. Do these grow out of our existence, our ability to speak, etc.? first-generation (human) rights (freedoms or liberties) the duty of government to not interfere include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from torture, right to a fair trial, voting rights. The following are criticized as an attempt to cloak political goals in the language of human rights Second-generation rights require affirmative government action for their realisation held and exercised by all, or a subset of, the people collectively right to education, rght to work, rght to social security, rght to food, rght to self-determination, rght to adequate standard of living. Third-generation or ‘solidarity’ rights realisation is predicated not only upon both the affirmative and negative duties of the state, but also upon the behaviour of each individual. right to development right to peace right to a healthy environment right to intergenerational equity http://www.environme...ppel%202008.pdf Take Care Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgeW Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Dutch, Don't all of these generations of specific rights spring from a common source, some basic concept? And, this underlying concept may be what causes many of us to question the very notion of a corporation having rights other than what we humans confer on it: Our rights are inherent in our humanity, its rights are what we say they are or are not. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glintofpewter Posted January 28, 2012 Share Posted January 28, 2012 Our rights are inherent in our humanity, its rights are what we say they are or are not. I do think they exist in the wonder of our existence. And I see them as the result of co-evolution. Your statement seems conditional. The rights of our humanity "are what we say they are or are not". Dutch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.