Re: [asa] An Evolutionary Theory of Right and Wrong

*What would be the problem if science established that there is an
evolutionary explanation for morality? I fail to see how.*

Well, we're getting into that difficult definitional territory of what
"evolution" or in this case an "evolutaionary explanation for morality"
means. I fail to see how an "evolutionary explanation for morality" that
attributes all morality solely to evolution can affirm any of the three
points I mentioned. OTOH, if by an "evolutionary explanation for morality"
you mean our evolutionary history predisposes us to think certain ways about
morality, and nothing more than that, I'd agree with you. The devil is in
the details.

On 10/31/06, Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Good questions. First of all let me lay to rest the idea that evolutionary
> ethic denies all of these three. In fact, I'd say that evolutionary theory
> denies none of these, other than perhaps 1). And of course, a Christian
> ethic will have to accept at least 3 and likely 1 and 2. However there is no
> reason to believe that there can not be a Christian evolutionary ethics. Yes,
> nature is tooth and claw, and altruism plays quite a relevant role in nature
> despite this. It's exactly these apparently contradictory factors which
> make the whole so interesting. A balance between selfishness and
> cooperation.
> As such there is sufficient room for Christian or other religious concepts
> to thrive.
> What would be the problem if science established that there is an
> evolutionary explanation for morality? I fail to see how.
>
> On Oct 31, 2006, at 5:48 PM, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> *As to the argument that morality is an evolutionary outcome, I find it
> quite a compelling position.*
>
> Pim, do you accept these three propositions: (1) human free will is real,
> not merely illusory; (2) there is a moral law that exists outside human /
> natural experience; (3) there is a transcendent God whose character and
> decrees form the basis of the moral law?
>
>
>
>
> It seems to me that a thoroughgoing evolutionary ethic denies all three of
> of these propositions (with the possible allowance of some degree of human
> free will). It further seems to me that any sort of orthodox Christian
> ethic cannot deny these three propositions (with of course some possible
> glosses and nuances on all three depending on whether one is Calvinsit or
> Arminian, etc.). Therefore, I don't see how anyone who claims any sort of
> orthodox Christian ethic can accept a throughgoing evolutionary ethic. I do
> see that the claim "we are predisposed to certain ways of ethical behavior
> and thought because of evolution" can be consistent with a Christian ethic,
> but I don't think that rather weak claim about predispositions is what
> evolutionary ethicists generally have in mind.
>
> *And it does little to address the issue of the existence of a God.
> **http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/* <http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/>
>
> Thanks for this interesting link. Though I suppose the "cybernetic" view
> of ethics referred to in the link doesn't rule out the existence of a god of
> some sort, the "ethical" system described seems to me deeply incongruous
> with any sort of orthodox Christian understanding of God as well as of
> ethics and human nature. It further seems empirically ludicrous.
>
> The "cybernetic" view presented is that "ethical" behavior simply reflects
> environmental feedback concerning behaviours that lead to human peace and
> prosperity. We are, as it were, simply Skinnerian creatures whose purported
> "ethical" acts are simply conditioned responses. This leaves zero room for
> genuine free will or moral responsibility, and zero room for a transcendent
> God who builds the moral law into creation based on His eternal character.
> In this sense, I think this sort of "cybernetic" ethics does in fact
> address, and rule out, the existence of the Christian God.
>
> Aside from that huge philsophical / theological problem, the notion that
> ethical ideals such as peace, justice, self-sacrifice, love, etc. are only
> conditioned responses based on positive feedback for such behaviors flies in
> the face of natural history as well as human history. Yes, I know, under
> some game theoretic circumstances altruistic behavior can represent the
> equillibruim choice. But let's face it -- nature is fundamentally red in
> tooth and claw. Altruism is unusual, not any sort of governing norm.
>
> Moreover, human history is equally red in tooth and claw. If anything,
> the death toll from war and totalitarian genocide over the past century
> demonstrates that human nature is conditioned against peace, justice,
> self-sacrifice, love, etc. And we all know this in our own heart of hearts,
> don't we? The Apostle Paul was right -- we are each corrupt at the core,
> and our hopes for peace, justice and love come ultimately from the God who
> is peace, justice and love, not from our evoultionary history.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 31 22:18:36 2006