Tell us more about how you gained/regained use of your eyes. Were you completely blind and can now see? How did you get your sight back, and how does it make you feel? Is the world what you thought it was, and does this explain your interest in philosophy?

It's not directly information on Nietzsche's effect on Hitler, but I can tell you why Nietzsche was wrong about one of the core ideas that manifested in the Nazi regime; that of the Superman, or Ubermenschen, originally described by Nietzsche in Thus Spake Zarathustra (1883–5), with reference to the facts of human evolutionary history.

"Elaborating the concept in The Antichrist, Nietzsche asserts that Christianity, not merely as a religion but also as the predominant moral system of the Western world, inverts nature, and is "hostile to life". As "the religion of pity", it elevates the weak over the strong, exalting that which is "ill-constituted and weak" at the expense of that which is full of life and vitality." (wikipedia: transvaluation of values.)

What Nietzsche didn't know is that, for the vast majority of our evolutionary history, human beings were hunter gatherers - living in tribal groups, headed by an alpha male and his one or two lieutenants. The earliest human societies only date back around 15,000 years or so; while evidence of a truly human intellect as evidenced in art and artifacts, improved tools and burial of the dead dates back around 50,000 years. Thus, for around 30,000 years - intelligent human beings lived as hunter gatherers - a fact that requires some explanation. Why did society not occur earlier?

In my view, the difficulty was the aforementioned naturally occurring hierarchy, and this is where Nietzsche's ideas enter the picture, but not in the way he thought. His claim was that naturalistic morality was overthrown as a consequence of the weak fooling the strong with religious morality. That's a misunderstanding. Religious morality is actually social morality necessary for hunter gatherer tribes to join together.

Imagine, two tribes both headed by alpha males, trying to join together to form a society. Any dispute over food or mating opportunities would likely lead to violence, and split the society into its tribal components. What was needed was an objective authority for moral law, and God served as that objective authority for an explicit set of moral laws (see Moses, and his tablets) that would apply equally to all.

Thus, Nietzsche identified a real phenomenon - but misunderstood it, and passed that misunderstanding onto the Nazis. The 'transvaluation of values' occurred not because the strong were fooled by the weak - but rather, because both tribes agreed to an explicit set of moral laws justified by the authority of God, to overcome tribalism and form multi-tribal society.

One might therefore speculate that, Nietzsche declaring "God is dead" undermined moral values justified by divine authority, and thereby allowed for the 'uncivilized' behaviors of the Nazis. World war II and the holocaust are thus understood as man taking divine authority unto himself - an idea you'll find explored in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, where the protagonist, Raskalinkov - imagines himself above the herd morality, and in his own mind justifies the killing of an old woman pawnbroker and her sister with an axe.

Raskalinkov gets away with it, but eventually breaks down under the weight of his own troubled conscience - and this is psychologically accurate, and true to the facts of evolutionary history, for in fact - morality is a sense, ingrained into the human organism by evolution in a tribal context. The idea of evolution as survival of the fittest - where fittest means brutally violent is also mistaken. Rather, both the moral individual within the tribe, and the tribe made up of moral individuals, would tend to prosper relative to a tribe of selfish individuals, because the moral individual would share food and fight for the tribe, unlike the selfish individual. Thus a tendency to morality would be promoted through sex and survival.

Nietzsche, and the Nazis assumed that evolution implied natural morality was merely brutal and selfish, but when you consider that they brought children into the world, protected mother and child through a prolonged gestation period, and raised children through to adolescence, that's obviously false. Human beings are moral creatures, but that ingrained moral sense can be perverted by ideas, to justify both the good, i.e. society, and unimaginable evil with considerable equanimity.

Ok, but where in the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" has any working scientist argued for limiting science research? With a few exceptions isn't the science culture dogma mantra full speed ahead on almost all fronts? — Jake

The distinction I'm trying to make is between science for power and profit, and - to put it very crudely, science for science sake. Scientists currently operate very much in the former context precisely because we fail to recognize the significance of a scientifically valid understanding of reality. Recognizing the authority of scientific truth in very certain respects, can alter the economic rationale such as to align profit and with a common interest in sustainability.

Where in your writing have you argued for limits on scientific research, any limits at all?

Or is the "scientifically valid understanding of reality" a utopian vision which you wish to present? If yes, then how do you propose to sell this vision to the scientific community, those who fund them, and the culture at large? — Jake

Currently, science is pursued almost solely for profit. The profit motive provides the rationale to do science, and to apply technology. I'm arguing for a different rationale, in certain key areas, one that follows from a straight up, scientifically bald description of the world. I do not imagine a utopia. I'm merely describing a useful tool.

There are legitimate limitations, I have argued should apply to the authority of a scientific understanding of reality, and both the legitimate authority of science, and a legitimate limitation upon that authority follow from the idea of existential necessity.

In scientific terms there's a really quite obvious series of technologies we need to apply on a global scale, in the immediate future. I would argue we must begin with renewable energy, clean fuel and clean water - all existentially necessary and well within our grasp.

The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future
— karl stone

No, with about 8000,000,000 of us on the planet today, and we have done nothing to slow the rate at which that becomes 9000,000,000, and 10,000,000,000 of us soon after that, there can/will be no future for our species, sustainable or otherwise. We have consumed too much. The root of the problem revolves around capitalism and greed, I think. — Pattern-chaser

Actually, in terms of population and natural resources, we are rather quite well placed right now to secure a favourable outcome. We have the knowledge, technology, the design capability and the industrial capacity to set ourselves, and future generations on a solid foundation. The obstacle is us; and the irony is - that the distance it seems from plausible is a precise measure of how far off the path we've gone. For it follows naturally that an organism crafted from the DNA up, to be correct to reality or die out, would welcome the ability to establish truthful knowledge, would revere and pursue such knowledge, and act accordingly. Does it not?

If we were to give a 10 year old access to ever more power without limit catastrophe would inevitably be the result sooner or later.

Same for a 15 year old.

..

Same for a 50 year old.

Are you starting to get where this is going, or should I spell it out a little bit more? — Jake

I understand what you're saying. But my actual argument is that the human species faces an existential challenge, and recognizing that science describes an understanding of reality provides a rationale for the application of technology necessary to secure sustainability. And, it seems to me, applying technology in relation to a scientifically valid understanding of reality would address your concern about 'power without limit.'

You sounded like you were lamenting how much more we could be doing if we embraced science, is that what you intended? It seems like the world at large HAS done that... — DingoJones

The distinction I make is between science as a tool box, and science as an instruction manual. Our problem is, we have used scientific tools without reading the instructions.

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment.
— karl stone

And you would in fact argue that in almost every post in every thread. — Jake

The degree to which I've elbowed the subject in to other topics is over-estimated by those who do not appreciate the full scope of the argument. At its core is the relationship between life and causal reality, as a definition of truth, it proceeds through evolution and anthropology to history and unto politics - to explain the current state and nature of our civilizations relative to intellectual evolution. It's not even, nor merely that we now know better - that's debatable in many ways, but the emergence of a qualitatively distinct and superior form of knowledge in scientific understanding that is significant. Imagine we chose to recognize it as such. The potential of harnessing scientific functionality to human affairs certainly allows for a sustainable future; and begins with harnessing vast amounts of renewable energy. 450 solar farms, one kilometer square, floating on the surface of the oceans would double the amount of energy available every year. Used to produce fresh water and hydrogen fuel - it would allow for habitation and agricultural production in previously inhospitable areas - thereby protecting natural resources from over-exploitation. In theory, all this is possible - and quite possibly, infinitely more. It would be remiss not to point it out.

To answer your opening question, no, I am not.
As for your other comments, they are not related to anything I said. — Mariner

Maybe I misread your post. Let's have another look.

Mariner
316 "Science" (which is pretty much amorphous these days) is not an epistemic standard. Science is a method (i.e., a way). Epistemic standards are presuppositions of science, but for that reason they are not to be confused with the theory and practice of scientists (which depend on those standards). — Mariner

If the fundamental questions epistemology seeks to answer are 'what can we know?' and 'how can we know it'? science, particularly relative to religious, political and economic ideology - constitutes a conception of reality with higher epistemic standards.

Science as a practice is a human activity. Were Pasteur not such a slob he left a cheese sandwich around to go moldy; if Newton had not been goofing off in the orchard... Methodically, science is a way of thinking - demonstrated to establish reliable knowledge, leading to general understanding. The sum of scientific knowledge is a conception of reality, to compare to the conception of reality proposed by ideology.

I would argue, that to maintain ideological conceptions of reality, the scientific conception of reality has been suppressed, downplayed and ignored, to our enormous detriment. Acting from an ideological identity is inescapable - but acting upon those ideas, like some theological over extension of metaphor - has equal and opposite effects. By the same principle, acting upon (not from) a scientific conception of reality will manifest a functionality in the real world - that follows from a truthful relation between the knowledge bases of action and reality. It is a lever - a key, a means of organisation with the potential for massive benefits - and in face of dire need.

Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.
— karl stone

No, of course they're not barred, but they'd be penalised through no fault of their own by having their win rendered invalid and by being exposed to the risk of losing again. Moreover, don't you think that there ought to be suitable restrictions regarding the length of time between a referendum and a rerun? Otherwise there'd be nothing from stopping a government, if they so decide, from having one every couple of years until they get the result that they want. — S

So you're telling me that the amorphous sense of 'winning' an individual might have as a result of his or her opinion being confirmed by a slight majority of others who cared to express an opinion two years ago, is more important than the actual consequences of the policy now we know what it is?

You do realise that over 30 million people voted, right? And I actually think that it being a relatively close call would, in a sense, make it even worse to rerun it, because that would mean that it was hard to win the first time. And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won. — S

Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.

"Science" (which is pretty much amorphous these days) is not an epistemic standard. Science is a method (i.e., a way). Epistemic standards are presuppositions of science, but for that reason they are not to be confused with the theory and practice of scientists (which depend on those standards). — Mariner

So you're with the 'there is no truth' squad - that band of people who undermine any scientific claim to authority with subjectivist and metaphysical relativism? The fact you're ignoring is that science works; it establishes generalized principles that can be applied over and over, and produce reliably valid results because the principle is true of some facet of reality. From the accumulation of true principles, over the past 50 years particularly, a highly coherent picture of reality has emerged - and it's that scientific picture of reality we need to take into account where necessary and appropriate to do so.

Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it!
— karl stone

Belief in God is also entirely useless in tuning the carburetor on a 57 Chevy convertible. So buh! Bah hum bug! Phooey! What foolishness! Etc ad nauseam infinitum!! — Jake

It's the epistemic standard, or lack thereof, that follows from belief in God - and pervades societal institutions, that's the problem when it comes to economic and industrial strategy - not God as such! In my view, putting the science out front is simple common sense, but philosophy requires more of us than common sense. For the argument to have any authority it has to be proven true, insofar as it can - or at least justified by sufficient reason - particularly if that argument is that we should value scientific method and understanding. Hence the need to examine critically.

Having looked at the matter, I rather suspect it's those who believe in God who object to recognition of science, because it places an undue burden on religion to justify its claims, rather than the objection of scientists to the fact that people believe all sorts of things. I certainly have no objection to what people choose to believe, but the political ill-effects of the unfounded fear that religion would have no raison d'etre without an uncontested claim to truth, need to be rectified. It seems we are sophisticated enough to encompass the contradiction.

An obvious flaw with the deterministic model of the brain is that the stimuli it is exposed to are non deterministic. Like me reading your post - the OP. The concepts it contains stimulated responses in the brain that may be reducible to material effects, but the 'cause' is not deterministic, even if what you wrote is a consequence of activity in your brain - words are not definitive of meaning. They are signifiers that have a more or less different meaning for different people, based on experience. That so, the act of communication is inherently non-deterministic.

You may say what you mean. I hear, or read what you say, but what I understand it to mean, is particular to me. So you can never be in complete control of what you say to me. What I understand as a consequence of what you said, is only the same as what you meant, insofar as we share a common lexicon and concept of reality. Otherwise, it's inherently non deterministic.

I don't understand how anyone can claim a second referendum would undermine democracy when the first referendum nullified 40 years worth of democratic decisions at a stroke, and was as crooked as a dog's hind leg!

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality.
— karl stone

I should've been clearer, sorry. I believe that God exists, in some sense, but I stop short of the more-concrete claim that God exists in the 'real' world. There is no evidence, after all. So I am happy to say what I believe, but not to make claims that might appear scientific or 'objective'. That's going too far, for me at least. — Pattern-chaser

Well, I'm happy for you if you find comfort and meaning in your belief. I just wouldn't base my economic and industrial strategy on it!

Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable?
— karl stone

For me: no. I believe that God exists, because I choose to. I find the concept beneficial in many different ways, which is why I make this choice. But I accept, openly and consciously, that this is wholly a faith position. — Pattern-chaser

So, you're saying you believe God exists - and surely, that's a claim about the nature of reality.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing. — Jake

That's a contradictory claim. Nothing has no dimensions!

And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point.
— karl stone

Aha! A miracle has occurred! We find a point of agreement! :smile: Let's build on it...

It's of course true that agnosticism is almost always seen as a mid point between theism and atheism. However, that is not the only possible way to look at it. The "regular agnostic" concludes that neither theists or atheists have convincing proof, and so they remain undecided as to which of these positions they will adopt for themselves.

The "regular agnostic" is still within the theist vs. atheist paradigm. As example, they still accept the assumption shared by theism and atheism, that the point of the inquiry should be to find an answer, the "regular agnostic" just isn't sure which of the answers offered by theists or atheists is the best.

It's possible for a "regular agnostic" to reason their way deeper in to agnosticism. They can, for example, discard the theist vs. atheist paradigm entirely, being neither theist, atheist, nor between the two, but instead outside of the entire God debate framework.

As example, what I call a "fundamentalist agnostic" can decline the assumption that the goal of such investigations should be to find an answer. What if what the God inquiry has discovered is that we are ignorant, and....

That's a good thing!

Here's a little story to begin to illustrate....

You met a girl at the bus stop and she invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand with her in to her bedroom. What will make this an experience you are likely to remember the rest of your life? Ignorance!

Now imagine that you marry the girl, and 37 years later are again walking in to the bedroom with her. What will make this an experience you won't remember until next Tuesday. Not enough ignorance!

Ignorance can be the enemy when we are dealing with matters of survival. Other than that, ignorance is often what keeps life fresh and makes it magical.

The fundamentalist agnostic rejects the simplistic assumption that ignorance is automatically a bad thing. In those cases where ignorance is inevitable and abundant (such as the God debate), the rational act is to embrace ignorance, and mine this abundant resource for every value which it can provide.

But, but, but.... You're very concerned with reality you say? Ok, great.

The overwhelming vast majority of reality from the very smallest to very largest scales is.... nothing. — Jake

It's important to science to admit what you are and are not able to know - and that's why I'm agnostic. I don't know if God exists, or does not exist. I'm okay with not knowing. I see no reason to form an opinion. The requirement of faith is a religious one; and the unfaith of atheism is its mirror opposite. The agnostic who admits what he can and cannot know for reasons of scientific epistemology is not within that paradigm, because reality is not defined by religion or irreligion. It's defined by science!

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy.
— karl stone

I'm sorry, I dispute that. I think you mean "...you're not doing scientific or logical philosophy." Philosophy is about thinking, and there is more to thought than logic and evidence. But, as you say, this thread asks whether science is inherently atheistic, which it is not. Science cannot comment on any aspect of God, because there is no evidence at all to work with. — Pattern-chaser

I accept there are important branches of philosophy - I'm thinking of political philosophy, that speak to concepts like justice, that have no material existence. It's a psychological and inter-subjective phenomena. Is that what you mean when you say you believe in God - not that you believe God exists, so much as you believe the concept of God exists, and has real world effects you believe are positive and desirable?

OK, let's not get side-tracked. I accept what you say. :up: For myself, I use "believe" to describe something I think is true, but accept that others may not. I use "know" to express facts, whose truth can be demonstrated in some more or less formal way. The important point is to know whether what you say or think can be logically justified, or not. It doesn't matter if it can't, it only matters that you know this when you say whatever-it-is. IMO — Pattern-chaser

If you have no problem making a claim that something exists without having an evidential basis for that claim, then you're not doing philosophy. At least, not epistemology. You might be doing theology, in which case - you can claim to believe anything you like. Theology isn't fussy about standards of proof. Science is. And the question here is 'Is science atheistic?' Not necessarily. Science is methodologically anti-faith - and yet, cannot entirely dismiss the God hypothesis because it cannot explain the first cause, in the progression of cause and effect relationships that describe the universe. It would be the claim, "I believe God is the first cause" - that's disallowed by a scientific epistemology.

So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist.
— karl stone

Nitpicking, I know, as I agree with nearly all you say. :smile: But I think it's OK to say "I believe that God exists", as long as I don't go to the next step and assert that God exists. But this does depend on how we define "believe", and then proceeds to get even more confused as we delve deeper. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

It depends on how we define knowledge. If we define knowledge as true justified belief - as I have say, in the existence of Australia, then saying "I believe God exists" is a claim to knowledge. If I were to say, 'I believe Australia exists' I'm saying Australia exists - though I've never actually seen it. I'm not making a statement about my beliefs, but about what exists. In short, I don't think you can make that distinction - because belief has to claim something in the world is real.

[ Edited to add: Of course, if I did say "I believe that God exists", and I do, I should be clearly aware that I am working outside logic, based on faith, and probably little else. I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief. None at all. And I'm happy with that. But it does need saying explicitly, so I'm going to say it again: I do believe God exists, but I know that I can offer no logical justification for my belief because there is no such justification.] — Pattern-chaser

Why do you believe? Why not just hope God exists? If you admit there's no rational justification for your belief, are you not really hoping that God exists, and yet construing that hope as belief? In doing so, you make a claim to knowledge - and existence, whether you intend it or not. Unless you would put your belief in God in the same category as the caricature of a patient in an insane asylum who believe's he's Napoleon. His belief is about his beliefs.

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence.
— karl stone

Exactly. :up: Science (and the logic that underlies it) demands that we not reach a conclusion if the evidence is less than conclusive. We must suspend judgement (i.e. actively avoid drawing any conclusions) until such time as there is sufficient evidence available to justify a conclusion. — Pattern-chaser

That's correct. So it would be fine to say for example - I hope God exists, but not okay to say I believe God exists, or I believe God doesn't exist. Theism and atheism are both unjustified conclusions. It's an argument that might work with some atheists; because they will recognize the limits rational argument places upon what they can and cannot claim to know.

But there's other atheists who insist atheism is not a belief; while effectively maintaining a belief that God does not exist. Similarly, theists refuse to recognize the epistemological principle. They would say - 'My faith is not based on evidence' and 'What kind of faith would it be if it required proof'? You cannot rationally argue someone out of an irrational position in which they are emotionally invested. And I think it's the emotional investment of both theists and atheists that keep them from settling on the rationally agnostic mid point.

Science is agnostic with regard to hypotheses lacking conclusive evidence.

Yeah, no, I totally agree that empirically we have no evidence that there are any rational beings in addition to humans, and would not insist there necessarily are any. However, I think my intuition is that given the shear scale of the universe even as we have discovered it so far, it is plausible to think that (it is possible) there are non-human beings - aliens, just to call a spade a spade - who exhibit and are capable of rational thought. — Mentalusion

I think it safe to assume that life occurs anywhere it can occur - and in the universe there are other places it can occur. The obstacles to the development of intelligent life however, may be more than we imagine. And in addition, the obstacles to intelligent life persisting for any significant length of time may again be quite onerous. Homo sapiens may be very unusual creatures indeed!

If you agree, then would we have to assume that the only way they could possess morality is if they developed through biological evolutionary processes similar to those humans undergo? If we don't assume that, then it would seem morality could be untethered from biological development in some cases. — Mentalusion

I imagine it's possible for biological organisms to invent intelligent machines that outlive their creators, and continue to develop. How else can one explain the Bootes void? That so, the question arises whether the machine intelligence would understand morality, but be essentially amoral - if they do not live, or die, or feel pain? Or, is morality and rationality ultimately reconcilable as some list of behavioral instructions? The literature would seem to say 'no' - because the is and the ought are fundamentally distinct realms. But while that may be true of intelligent machines, it's not true of human beings imbued with a moral sense by evolution.

If you disagree that it is possible there are non-human rational being in the universe, I'm still curious whether you think a conventional form of morality is impossible. That is, suppose we do develop certain moral intuitions as the result of our evolution and develop rules related to those intuitions that form the framework of a moral system. If we agreed to change the rules so that they were no longer consistent with our intuitions but based on rational judgments instead (about what is best, most expedient, whatever), is it unfair to still call that new set of rules a moral system? If it's not unfair to say that, then how is that conventional system related to the supposed evolutionary developments of our moral psychology? — Mentalusion

Very interesting and perceptive question to which I have definite answer. The short answer is that morality is a form of truth. The longer answer begins with imagining the structure of DNA forming in the primordial oceans. In its very structure, DNA had to be correct to the environment to survive and reproduce. It had to persist in relation to heat, light, various forms of radition, and the chemical composition of its environment. Further, it had to unzip down the middle to attract chemicals from the environment to reproduce. Thus, it's very structure is true to the reality of the environment. Jumping forward in time, consider how organisms have to be physiologically correct to reality to survive - most basically, internalizing energy and excreting waste, regulating temperature, and so on. Then consider animal behavior - how, for instance, a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs. It doesn't know and plan ahead. That behavior is ingrained by the function or die algorithm of evolution - i.e. those who were not correct to this aspect of reality are extinct.

In this context, we consider human evolution, and morality as a sense ingrained into the human organism by the necessity of tribal life - and we discover that morality is fundamentally a truth relation to reality. Thus, morality is a form of truth - where truth is a valid relation to reality, necessary to survival. Consequently, in answer to your question: insofar as those rational judgments were indeed rational, it wouldn't be changing anything; merely clarifying!

For example, it is a fact we do not acknowledge - that humankind is a single species, all occupying the same planet. Thus racial prejudice and xenophobia may be intuitive, but are an intuition based on a false conception of reality. If in order to be rational one accepts the facts into the calculus of moral reason, it makes no sense to be racist. It's morally wrong to the fact that humankind is a single species, all occupying the same planet.

This is where it gets interesting - because, consider the accused lying to the court, and assume his lies are believed. The calculus of moral reason inherent to the legal process works to an unjust end, because the information upon which the process functions is false. Even children understand this instinctively - that a false conception of reality perverts the calculus of moral reason, and they learn to lie quite early on as a natural part of the developmental process, to skew the world in their favor.

So you think it would be impossible for rational creatures, whether human or not, to agree to a system of moral codes? Part of the question being whether it's possible some rational beings don't necessarily come about as a result of evolutionary forces or go through tribalism in the course of their social development. If it's possible there are such beings, then would they be prevented from having a moral system based on how you've conceived it here? Is that the best way to frame a concept of morality, such that it necessarily excludes some agents who intuition might suggest seem to be capable of acting morally? — Mentalusion

I have explored the idea of a Nietzschian - amoral species, and cannot imagine that species could progress very far beyond a state of nature. Putting aside the infinite diversity of nature, think upon the difference between a creature that cares for its young, and one that lays eggs and walks away. The amoral species is an egg layer who walks away. It doesn't care for its young, it doesn't form a society, doesn't develop technology - so it doesn't progress beyond a state of nature.

Caring for the young is necessary to the developmental process - inherent to higher intelligence. The more complex the creature, the longer the dependency upon the mother and the tribe. This requires a self-sacrificial moral behavior in adults - broadly called altruism. The developmental potential of an organism that must be hardwired to survive from the moment the egg cracks open is quite limited.

In short, I believe morality is inherent to intelligence, and that you can't have an amoral rational creature. However, there's a saying among biologists - 'evolution is smarter than you are.' And we have only the one example, of life on earth, and the one example of a rationally intelligent creature, homo sapiens, to work with. So, I suppose my question to you would be - what kind of rational agent to do imagine is excluded by this concept of morality?

Briefly, he seems to state that morality is, at last, an emerged social institution, not a result of a human design, but a result of non-intentional consequences of human action. It means that the evolution of societies is somehow similar in principles to biological evolutionary theories, which is guided by some sort of natural selection. Those societies that came up to developed emerged but bad institutions just have failed, resting to our time those that, we could say, were approved in the test of time and adapted to general circumstances. Thus, the rules of morality are not the conclusions of our reason. What do you think? Is this evolutionary approach reasonable to the studies of social sciences? — F.C.F.V.

Morality is fundamentally a sense - ingrained into the organism by evolution in a tribal social context. It's promoted as an evolutionary advantage - to the individual within the tribe, and to the tribal group overall.

Society is effectively, the joining together of hunter-gatherer tribal groups, and that wasn't easy. The obstacle is inherent to the social hierarchy of hunter-gatherer tribes - ruled by an alpha male with one or two lieutenants, monopolizing food and mating opportunities within the tribe. Thus, any two such tribes would have great difficulty joining together to form a society, because any disagreement would immediately split the society into its tribal parts.

This obstacle was overcome with an explicit moral code - justified with reference to God. So, I'd have to disagree with Hayeck to some extent; not because morality is not fundamentally an evolutionary quality, but in that, in a state of nature morality is a sense of morality located within individuals and the tribal structure, whereas in multi-tribal society, morality is an expression - an explicit moral code, objective with respect to the individual.

So, unless one believes God inscribed the tablets Moses carried down the mountain - for example, those codes were thought about and designed by human beings - as the basis of societal institutions. However well designed in the first instance, they inevitably become anachronistic over time, and persist as institutional morality - often in quite painful contradiction to attitudes that develop as a result of experience - understood in terms of the innate moral sense, and communicated inter-subjectively.

An example of this is how mass immigration and Islamic terrorism has promoted a far right resurgence in Europe, in contradiction of anti-racist values, made explicit in democratic institutions. Another is increasingly tolerant social attitudes to homosexuality, against hostile values made explicit in religious texts. It's the difference between morality as an innate sense, and morality as an explicit expression of societal values.

they apparently feel compelled to communicate that objection at every juncture. I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian.
— karl stone
I've only just met you, and already you've told me you're a meat-eater. Funny, that. — Herg

In a thread discussing the eating of meat - it's not entirely surprising you know I eat meat. But I didn't start this thread. And I didn't start a thread with a question; and then answer every post telling people what the answer is. The title might have read 'our dominion over animal is unethical' - a statement of position, that would at least have been honest.

It's in that context one has to wonder why: "I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian." I imagine I'm about averagely sympathetic, so I cannot believe that there are people in the world - so incredibly sympathetic, it's for that reason alone they are compelled to moralize to everyone they encounter. Like the question at the top of this thread, I don't believe it's honest.

Now add to that, the fact that nature is red in tooth and claw. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. How can vegetarians possibly accept that fact - when moralizing in the way they do? They don't - they live in some fantasy world, where the lion lays down the lamb - so to speak. Again, it's dishonest.

And this leads to the question of ethics. Ethics is not a simple matter. i.e. farming involves suffering. Suffering is wrong. Therefore farming is unethical. That's false. Ethics is a system of moral values that play out in relation to the real world. So, if the title were 'our dominion over animals is unethical' - that position would have to account for all the relevant and related factors; not least, human sustenance and industry.

There's no attempt to address those factors here - and this is a philosophy forum. It's not a chat forum. My interest here is ethics. The subject matter, is to my mind - a workable example. Only there's no work - there's just some bleeding heart pretense as a claim to moral superiority. It's dishonest, and that is unethical!

Sorry, I'm not a conspiracy nut. — S

Nor am I. I'm a politics nut. Check my facts. David Cameron was a brexiteer who called the referendum, sabotaged the Remain position he then adopted, and lost on purpose for Remain.

I was kind of with you until that nonsense about David Cameron sabotaging the Remain campaign, of which he played a prominent part in promoting, and about Brexit being an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government. — S

You neither, huh?

The 2016 referendum was corrupt in every respect. David Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who sabotaged his credibility on key issues with a pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, and with a renegotiation - that could not have been renegotiated overnight or unilaterally, and so only served to publicize a long list of complaints about the EU. Coming back from Brussels, when Cameron touched down on British soil - with his inevitable failure swirling about him, he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.

Meanwhile, the Leave campaign was farmed out to a shady organization called the Tax Payer's Alliance - a rabid right wing economic policy group. Other, unofficial Leave campaigns sprang up - and used stolen facebook data to design and target false and divisive propaganda.

David Cameron lost on purpose for Remain, in coordination with the main Leave campaign. We can know this because the rhetoric employed by the official Leave campaign, was written by David Cameron in the 2005 and 2010 Conservative Party manifestos. "Take back control of our borders" etc.

The cherry atop this huge shit sundae is that the current Prime Minister was David Cameron's Home Secretary - with responsibility for immigration. She dismantled the border force, allowed 635,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, (five years after Cameron's pledge) then published those figures weeks before the vote. Then, when Cameron lost on purpose for Remain and resigned, she stepped into his shoes - without a vote by anyone.

Brexit is an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government; these are the facts - but if you imagine you can interest any MP or media organization in bringing them to light, you'd be wrong. No-one wants to know.

The mature thing to do would be to respond to the post above,
— karl stone

The logical thing to do would be to not invest time in trying to explain such things to those who show no evidence of being capable of ever getting it. Such a procedure is a waste of everybody's time, and accomplishes little more than generating pointless conflict.

A better approach would be to try to identify those who have already decided to move towards a plant based diet, but are new to the subject and need some assistance with their transition. For example, a website with a title something like "How To Become A Vegetarian". — Jake

I have no objection to people who want to be vegetarian making their own decisions. Nor to you creating a website. It's vegetarians who have an objection to my decisions - and they apparently feel compelled to communicate that objection at every juncture. I have never met a vegetarian - I only later discovered was a vegetarian. And when you discuss it in depth, as we have here - I've often found that it's not so much a love of animals, but a dislike of people - coupled with post-material values.

Not eating meat gives them a cheaply purchased sense of moral superiority they cannot help but flaunt; and the reason you don't like me digging down - is that, it puts that moralism at risk. You want me shut and be preached to. Well that's not going to happen. Chatterbears asked a question - he can't even answer himself. He thinks suffering and death are conclusive of unethical behavior - but they're not. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Farming is less cruel than nature - while providing sustenance and industry, that in turn lends value to the land and the environment. All this is part of any question of ethics, and a failure to examine those things - reduces vegetarianism to a misanthropic, weepy moral pretense of the privileged few.

This topic was created to discuss spirituality, enlightenment in particular. The persistence is yours. The derail is yours. The unfriendliness, that's yours too. Time to stop now. — Pattern-chaser

Yes. Admittedly, I am unfriendly toward hocus pocus. I don't like Christianity, or Buddhism, or Islam or Judaism. So at least I'm consistent. This is not discriminatory unfriendliness - but an epistemic distinction, between scientifically valid knowledge, and emotionally grabby unfounded assertions - generally made by unscrupulous people to defraud the gullible. It's scam that thrives on friendliness - upon fake sympathy, but is ultimately more cruel, more controlling, more possessive and demanding than the unvarnished truth.

So, I've defined my view of the term enlightenment - but what's yours? A claim to superior understanding and authority that has no practical means of demonstration? And meanwhile, an actually Enlightened body of knowledge - that surrounds with practical miracles, has no authority at all? Instead, it's subject to the religious, political and economic complex - under the rubric of which, all manner of tawdry new age philosophies multiply.

Homeopathy, witches, living on light, healing crystals, guiding angels, mediums, druids, ghost hunters, tarot cards, ouji boards etc, etc - such that if I'm unfriendly, it's that they cynically play on friendliness - on the fact that people are too kind to be as brutally honest as science has to be to be true.

lol yeah. It took me a while... Karl doesn't understand the concept of answering a question. Maybe you can try to ask him in another thread. This is what you may encounter.

Why are animals not worth of moral consideration if we cause them unnecessary suffering?
"Because they aren't on top of the food chain."
Why is the food chain an indicator of how to treat sentient beings?
"Because.... dinner."

If you want to talk about food chains, how about you ask Karl to fight a tiger or bear with what he was naturally born with (hands and feet and teeth). That food chain will get resolved real fast, lol... — chatterbears

I'm going to stop replying to you now (then bitch about you behind your back!) Real mature. The mature thing to do would be to respond to the post above, and explain how not eating meat would be ethical in its effects on other people, animals and the wider environment. There are whole ecosystems and landscapes dependent on grazing animals, not to mention a significant part of the economy. If your only premise is the 'unnecessary suffering of animals' killed for food - then it's not unethical. Indeed, you haven't even established it's unnecessary!

I was going to respond to the rest of your post, but I think it is pointless at this point.
— chatterbears

Hey, you figured it out! — Jake

It's pointless if you don't agree!

:lol:

Have fun on another thread. I'm going to stop responding to you now. Ty — chatterbears

Okay, but before I leave you to it - you should really look up the term 'ethics' and consider it as a system of moral values - in relation to the real world. Because even if, eating meat causes suffering, it's not therefore unethical. Claiming it's unethical requires you consider other things, off the top of my head - like the amount of land necessary to feed 7 billion on vegetables alone, and the consequence of using artificial fertilizers if animal dung were not available, like the livelihoods of farmers, and so on and on right down to denying people a right to make their own choices. Your sympathy for animals is but one tiny, and relatively inconsequential factor to be taken into account.

Here's the conversation.

Chatterbears: It is wrong to kill animals and people unnecessarily.
Karl: But animals are not people.
Chatterbears: Why does that matter? They both can feel and suffer.
Karl: Animals are not people, they are dinner.
Chatterbears: Ok. That doesn't answer anything. Why should we cause harm to animals unnecessarily?
Karl: Because animals are not worthy of the same moral consideration.
Chatterbears: Still haven't answered. Why aren't they worthy of the same moral consideration in regards to unnecessary suffering?
Karl: Because animals are not human beings. They are lower on the food chain.

Smh... — chatterbears

No. Here's the conversation:

Chatterbears: Is our dominion over animals unethical?
Karl: No, because, you know...reality!
Chatterbears: It is, it is, it is, it is!
Karl: Why?
Chatterbears: Boo hoo hoo, animals are people too!
Karl: No, they're not!
Chatterbears: Go eat a new born baby!
Karl: I'll just have the lasagne, thanks!

Vegans, not vegetarians. Animals are factory farmed because we eat them. If we stopped eating them, they wouldn't be farmed. If you want to say they would be farmed for clothing (such as a leather), that's a separate issue. But Vegans do not buy any animal products, including leather. So that would go away as well. You talk about bias and prejudice, yet you can't understand simple supply and demand? — chatterbears

Of course I understand such a simplistic concept. I just don't accept the implications you draw from it - nor the assumptions you smuggle into the argument under its rubric.

And black people were bred for slavery in the US. And the vast majority of people owned slaved. And they were not likely to stop doing so. Should that be a reason to continue doing it, because it is a demand and the majority supports it? — chatterbears

But they're people - you concept smuggler you. Animals are not people. They're dinner!

Also, morally, it's quite simple. Veganism is a logically consistent extension of whatever moral system you already have in place for yourself. You cannot be logically consistent without being Vegan. — chatterbears

Well therein may lay your problem - moralism to the exclusion of fact.

For example. A person could give these reasons:

"I eat meat because I like the taste."
"I eat meat because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat meat because animals are not as intelligent as I am."

If we take just those 3 justifications for the action committed, we can apply logically consistency to their position and see if they would still accept it.

"I eat new born babies because I like the taste."
"I am a cannibal because it is convenient to do so."
"I eat new born babies because they are not as intelligent as I am."

If you wouldn't accept the second set of claims, then you are not logically consistent. Since this clearly demonstrates that these reasons are not sufficient justifications to commit an action. — chatterbears

Again, animals are not people.

And you still haven't answered.... I think at this point it is clear you are being either dishonest and/or purposely evasive. I don't know how to raise a child, but I would never condone killing one. You don't need to know anything about raising pigs or dogs, to understand why you would eat one but not the other. And instead of answering my question, of why you would support the killing of pigs but not of dogs, you constantly evade the question. — chatterbears

As you keep raising the same points, I answered the point toward the end of my post. Shame you missed it. I seem to recall establishing the natural pecking order. Animals are not human beings. They are not worthy of the same moral consideration. They are worthy of some moral consideration - regarding unnecessary suffering, but subject to the pecking order as manifest, in this instance, in the food chain.

Bearing in mind that the fate of animals in nature is suffering and death - often quite a horrible death, with another animal tearing them open and eating them alive, farming, by contrast - is relatively humane. Why pigs and not dogs? It's clearly a cultural preference, because some people eat dogs.

It's all very well you saying that it's unnecessary - because humans can live on vegetables alone, but we don't. And that's a natural fact - that given the natural pecking order and the fate of animals in nature - you cannot maintain is unethical without engaging in weepy moralism based on false equivalence.

Ha no it’s not got anything to do with Buddhism it’s about having a conversation that could be interesting without having to put up with interruptions that dilute the content. — Dan84

Feel free to send a PM - and I'll respond or I won't.

What Krishna taught, the teachings of yoga, had nothing to do with religion. They were based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations. Similar teachings were given by Buddha as dharma and had nothing to do with religion. They were just as much based on principles of the activities of our lives and apply to all occupations. — BrianW

From the POV of the western person seeking some spiritual dogma to follow because they cannot think for themselves, and must therefore borrow from others to lend their own personality a little depth - your dogma is entirely interchangeable with any religious dogma, and the claim it's not a religion - it's a philosophy, is a distinction without a difference. It's slightly different in its native context. There, it's an inter-generational religious practice - ideas ingrained into children before the age at which they're capable of rational judgement.

I don't know the religious system from which you derive enlightment but, it is obvious you do not know the Bhagavad Gita or even the teachings of Buddha. None of those teachings have anything to do with mysticism. Their teachings were and have been practised by many including those whose occupations are in the fields of science, politics, religion, philosophy, etc. — BrianW

I can think for myself, and think reality quite astonishing enough without needing to gussy it up with tawdry decoration. If you have anything as ineffable in your philosophy as wondering what the universe is expanding into, for example - then sign me up! If you have built any glittery thing to your god that's as magnificent as the starry sky, anything as beautiful as the sunrise, anything as profoundly excruciating as individual mortality against hope for the future of our children - then sign me up. Otherwise, I'll simply look reality in the eye and be humbled by its fearful majesty.

Also, the numerous machines and tools invented long before the 'science' revolution or 'the age of enlightenment' is a testament to the fact that analytical methods of investigation and the empirical value derived therefrom have been in existence for a very long time. Rationale was a part of humans long before the term science was coined. — BrianW

Here's a real thing most people don't see. Ask yourself - do you know more today than yesterday? Do you know more, and better today than when you were five years old? Clearly, knowledge has a direction - from less and worse knowledge, to more and better knowledge over time - and yet you parade the ancientness of your philosophy as a claim to superiority.

I don't know whether your scientific inclination allows you to use unfounded premises in your accusations but, I can assure you the valid teachings on enlightenment, eastern or otherwise, are not based on superstition. They are products of well reasoned out practices. — BrianW

I'm sure you think so. But how could you say otherwise? To my mind, your philosophy is quite easily categorized alongside religious dogma - and it's a pretense you don't have gods when you revere as gods claimants of a psychological state described as: "a state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality." If this isn't a religion - but a philosophy, if it isn't incompatible with science, presumably you can explain in terms of cause and effect how...

Satisfy the Divine with your sacrificial deeds — and It will satisfy you! By acting for Its sake, you will achieve the highest good.
For the Divine satisfied with your sacrificial deeds will grant you whatever you need in life. The one who receives gifts and gives no gifts in return, is verily a thief!
The righteous who live on the remains of their sacrificial gifts to God are liberated from sins. But those who are anxious only about their own food — they feed on sin!
Thanks to the food, the bodies of creatures grow. The food arises from rain. The rain arises from Sacrifice. (I.e., as a result of right behavior of people.) Sacrifice is performance of right action.
- Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 3; 11-14. — BrianW

....rain arises from sacrifice. What this seems like to me, is a primitive terror that the crops will fail because the rains did not come - written into religious practice. What does this sacrifice entail? I imagine goods deeds and giving money to the church. It's no different to Catholicism - behavioral control by the clergy. i.e. the antithesis of Enlightenment.

I have to agree here Karl. I’m open to your reasoning and you are certainty intelligent, certainly, more so than myself for sure. But you are at risk of being closed.
Karl id like to start a personal dialogue with you discussing mainly these matters but others, related. Would you mind?
I’m no expert on debate but I feel like you are so maybe you can educate me in the process.
Let me know. — Dan84

I cannot imagine there's anything you can't say here. Afterall, this is a thread about yoga, and I'm discussing science and survival. If this is the Buddhist way of telling me to knock it off - just tell me to knock it off. It's okay to want things!

Or perhaps you might accept that, like nearly every other English word in existence, "enlightenment" has several meanings, all of which are clearly understood (from context) by the vast majority of English speakers? Here's one link, but there are many others. The Eastern meaning of "enlightenment" is listed as a known meaning of this word. Must we only use words in the way that you, personally, use them? Piffle! — Pattern-chaser

I'm quite sure, if asked, most people would understand the term enlightenment to refer to some eastern spiritual nonsense, and very few would know anything about the 18th century rationalist philosophical movement. What does that tell you? That science, while surrounding us with miracles of technology - and providing real knowledge of the world, is nonetheless held in contempt. I seek to address that - because truth is important, particularly as we face global scale existential threats. No amount of limb bending and chanting at the beyond is going to solve climate change. We need to complete the Enlightenment project.