Separate Search Page
or search below
|
Happiness Home Page | Separate Search Page |
||
| Purpose | Write To Karl Loren | Table Of Contents | ||
| Role Model |
|
You Can Help |
ABRIDGED CHAPTERS:
HISTORY of
NATURALISTIC ETHICS
AN
INTRODUCTION TO NATURALISTIC ETHICS
PREMISES of NATURALISM
The major purpose of philosophy in an age of specialized scientific investigation is to act as a 'comprehensive' and 'cohesive' agent to discern an 'overview' from all the specialized fields of limited scope, and evaluate the 'implications' of their discoveries in terms of the 'human condition in general'. Such a comprehensive and coherent philosophical belief system is Naturalism, as ancient as the first Greek philosophers, and as modern as cutting edge science, it addresses all three major branches of human inquiry, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
Naturalistic Ethics is of particular concern to free thinkers, as it is a method for evaluating morality using objective reasoning devoid of religious or authoritative dogma. This dissertation is only a summarized introduction that merely skims the surface of Naturalism and in particular Naturalistic Ethics. I hope that this summary will serve as an impetus for those reading it, to further research Naturalistic philosophy, because I believe it has the greatest potential as a valid approach for establishing correct conceptions and justified moral conduct.
CLEAR DEFINITIONS
First let's get a firm grasp on the ideas we're talking about via definitions of terms, the three major branches of human understanding are as follows:
-->Def. "-METAPHYSICS- n. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of 'reality', including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value." American Heritage Dictionary
-->Def. "-EPISTEMOLOGY- n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of 'knowledge', its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity." American Heritage Dictionary
-->Def. "-ETHICS- n. 1.a. A set of principles of 'right conduct'. b. A theory or a system of moral values. 2. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person." American Heritage Dictionary
In short, metaphysics considers 'the nature of reality', epistemology considers 'how we come to know' reality, and ethics considers 'what we should do' about reality.
OVERVIEW of the PHILOSOPHICAL BELIEF SYSTEM of NATURALISM
Since Naturalistic Ethics is derived from the overall system of Naturalism we should take a moment to consider the principles it uses to address the three major branches of human understanding, which are summarized as follows:
-->Def. -NATURALISM (Metaphysics) - "A view that everything is composed of natural entities, (as opposed to supernatural), whose properties determine all the properties of all things, persons included, as well as abstractions like mathematics." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
-->Def. -NATURALISM (Epistemology) - "An approach that views acceptable methods of justification and explanation are continuous, in some sense, with those in science, and views the human subject as a natural phenomena, and uses empirical science to study epistemic activity." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
-->Def. -NATURALISM (Ethics) - "The view that ethical conclusions are derivable in non-ethical natural terms, from non-ethical premises, and that ethical properties are natural properties. Naturalism takes ethical knowledge to be empirical and accordingly models it on the paradigm of the natural sciences." Oxford & Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
The reason Naturalism's ethics asserts that ethical conclusions derive from 'non-ethical' terms and premises, is because once one understands the nature of reality (metaphysics), and the nature of human perception in understanding that reality (epistemology), ethics follows logically from the relation of man's place in reality's order, without 'special' terms or premises for ethics. In other words, the definition of Naturalistic Ethics asserts that the principles of morality can be derived from objective reasoning, i.e. from the observation and explanation of 'facts' about the 'natural world' and humankind's place in it. Thus moral behavior is simply rational action.
All 'non-natural' ethical theories are based merely on: 1) subjective opinions, (i.e. 'personal' preferences); 2) unverifiable religious faith, (i.e. 'mystical revelations' in the form of commandments, papal decrees, rituals, and traditions); or 3) authoritative dogma, (i.e. 'government mandates' in the form of ordinances, prohibitions, and duties). Contrarily, Naturalistic Ethics is a form of Moral Realism, in which objectifying morality allows the principles to be reasoned to by 'anyone' through the consideration of 'empirical facts'. With Naturalistic Ethics there are no irreproachable mystics, nor authoritative dictators prescribing behavior, simply reasoned courses of action from evidential facts.
Just as in objectively oriented empirical science, which is the method naturalism uses to verify beliefs, naturalized ethics is subject to 'ongoing inquiry and verification', and is revised when warranted by new evidence, hence it is 'not dogmatic'. Natural ethics derive from what is consistently observable, i.e. empirical facts about natural order, and hence its prescriptions apparent to any individual who studies the facts concerning our human circumstance, and reasons to the correct procedural behaviors necessary to accomplish ends in accordance with human purpose.
Human purpose is intuited through the innate direction of human nature, for human nature consists of a set of inherent drives which 'necessarily' evolved as a guide toward fulfilling the 'needs' requisite for our success as a species. Our 'acquired understanding' of evolutionary principles allows us to 'augment' our comprehension of 'intuited' innate drives, by applying 'evidential reason' to verify and adapt their 'general' direction into 'specific' behaviors that fulfill our needs in the novel and/or artificial habitats of our modern circumstance. By correctly 'identifying innate drives', and the 'essential function they evolved to serve'; one can logically interpret how this functional relation applies to our modern circumstance, thereby practicing correct behavior by appropriately channeling and balancing our inherent motivational influences.
Since our innate drives represent the necessities of human existence, they are the constants we can use to calculate correct behavior when presented with the variables generated by mankind's historical development, which inevitably lead to novel habitats through the migration, technology, and social system particular to an era and culture. In other words, formulating the functional relation of our necessarily evolved instincts to the variables of a given situation, we can discern what particular behaviors are necessary for perpetuating our species from the many alternative courses of action available in contingent circumstances.
BIOLOGICAL NATURALISM
There are many methods for investigating and comprehending human nature, and many theories as to the specific morals Naturalized Ethics infer. The contemporary version of Ethical Naturalism I am presenting, is based on two essential premises derived from observed facts discerned by the natural sciences, the view called "Biological Naturalism" and the theory called "Evolutionary Ethics".
-->KEY CONCEPT - Both "Biological Naturalism" and "Evolutionary Ethics" derive from the view that biology is the most pertinent of the sciences for discerning correct human behavior, since "all things human are biological".
-->Def."-BIOLOGICAL NATURALISM- The view that mental phenomena such as consciousness and intentionality are natural biological phenomena on a par with growth, digestion, or photosynthesis. Biological naturalism is defined by two main theses: 1) all mental phenomena from pains, tickles, and itches to the most abstruse thoughts are caused by lower-level neurobiological processes in the brain, 2) mental phenomena are higher level features of the brain." Oxford Companion to Philosophy
NOTE: This view asserts that, 1) the mind is a biological phenomenon, with no immaterial spirits or special 'life forces' involved, i.e. mind is a process involving the same sort of physical and chemical principles that apply to any other occurrence in nature; and 2) all human motivation and thought is 'based' on innate predispositions evolved in the mental processing mechanisms of our species.
-->Def."-EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS- A body of theory which seeks to locate moral institutions within the main ideas of evolutionary biology. The general thesis is that we value things and persons in accordance with their capacity to sustain and maintain 'survival' in evolutionary terms." Oxford Companion to Philosophy
NOTE: From the tenet of 'Biological Naturalism' derives 'Evolutionary Ethics', for if we accept that the mind is a biological entity, 'evolved' like any other, we must accept that the human mind was 'generated by', and 'subject to', the natural selection process; which results in biomechanisms inherently structured solely by their ability to enhance the survival of a species. Therefore all ethics derived from our mental processes, are predicated on survival as a species, thus for the human species the objective basis for all moral theories is:
-->KEY CONCEPT OF THIS THESIS: - That which facilitates the survival of our species defines 'good'; and conversely, that which deters from the survival of our species defines 'bad'.
HISTORY of NATURAL ETHICS
PRELIMINARY NOTES ON TERMINOLOGY AND MEANING
The philological study of the origins of word-concepts in relation to cultural meaning is a major concern of philosophy, as linguistics is paramount to the construction, comprehension, and communication of all ideas. Our understanding of the world is greatly influenced by the cultural implications affecting the consensual meanings of the words we use to assemble and convey concepts with. The meaning of a word is defined by many other words, thus any concept represented by a word is affected by an interdependence on the meanings of all the words associated with it, which in turn is interdependent on many other word-concepts, and so on. The multi-layered interdependence of semantic systems is made even more abstruse by the fluctuations in the common experiences and beliefs intrinsic to various cultures and eras, affecting variations in conceptualization and consequentially the consensual meanings associated with the words symbolizing these concepts.
Languages evolve from centuries of interaction and melding of archaic peoples, each with a relatively distinct conceptual model of reality with correspondingly distinct semantic system used to denote these paradigms. Thus semantics is a dynamic system of continuously changing societal consensus regarding the meaning and use of word symbols, which results in a rather confusing hodgepodge of word-concepts accumulated and reconfigured by coincidence, rather than a well planned logical system. As a result, many of the terms contained in foreign and/or archaic literature intend to convey the specific meaning associated with these words within the peculiar context of the culture and/or era of the writer.
The typical meanings our culture associates with words, can vary greatly from those of writers in foreign societies and/or archaic times, which can cause great confusion about what they intended to say. To facilitate correct interpretation of the cultural and archaic usage of words, into the contextual meaning appropriate to our era, some of the quotes used herein, contain philological translations in parentheses.
Below is a supplemental list of words and phrases, frequently used in this thesis, with (contextually speaking, often but not necessarily) essentially synonymous meaning, to further aid in translation between cultural, archaic, (and field specific 'subculture' jargon) contexts:
GETTING A HANDLE ON THE NATURALISTIC VIEW
The following quotes and excerpts exemplify and clarify the principles of the Naturalistic Ethics, give its historical development, and allude to how trans-culturally and trans-historically its tenets have been derived, thus evidencing naturalistic beliefs are consilient with the human condition, human understanding, and human nature.
NOTE: This is by no means a thorough historical account of Naturalism's influence on human understanding, for a vast multitude of scientists and philosophers incorporate naturalistic tenets in their beliefs. This sketchy historical etiology merely touches on some of most famous proponents of naturalistic ethics, and a few of the major transitions from its implicit to explicit description.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THALES -(Thales, Greece, 580 B.C.),
"Western philosophy is considered generally to have begun in ancient Greece as speculation about the underlying nature of the physical world. In its earliest form it was indistinguishable from natural science. The first philosopher of historical record was Thales ... who was interested in astronomical, physical, and meteorological phenomena, and his scientific investigations led him to speculate that all natural phenomena are different forms of one fundamental substance." 'Western Philosophy' Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia
NOTE: Thales didn't divide his conception of the world into natural and supernatural realms, as our culturally prevalent Cartesian dualism model of reality does. Thales' theories were physicalistic and monistic, and his conclusion that the world consists of one fundamental substance coincides with modern science's concept of mass/energy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFUCIUS -(Confucius, China, c. 551-479 B.C.),
"For Confucius as for Taoists, the 'Way' or 'Tao', is basically the path taken by natural events. For Confucius, everything 'thrives according to nature'. Confucius thought the principle of the 'Mean' provides a standard measure for all things. Human behavior should (ethics) avoid extremes and seek moderation ... when things function in accordance with this principle of the Mean, they stand in a 'relationship of natural dependence', i.e. the principle requires reciprocal cooperation between people and between people and nature." from 'Philosophy: The Power of Ideas' by Brook Moore & Kenneth Bruder
NOTE: Even though China and Greece were isolated from each other at the time, their oldest recorded philosophers reached the same conclusion, of a single universal natural realm. Also notice how Confucius's conception of the 'mean between extremes' corresponds to Plato's theory of 'ideal forms' derived from the same principle, and used as the basis of classical art; it also correlates to Hegel's dialectic principle of thesis and antithesis, (the extremes), leading to a more correct synthesis, (the mean). The concept of the 'mean' as a measure of correct behavior correlates to naturalistic ethics because it is a normative system that looks to the statistical apex of the bell curve of behavior patterns to derive what is natural (innate) behavior. The "reciprocity between people and nature" corresponds to modern concept of ecological awareness. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE STOICS -(Stoicism, prevalent philosophy in Greece and Rome, c. 300 B.C. through 200 A.D),
"The Stoic's ethical teaching is based upon two principles already developed in their physics; first, that the universe is governed by absolute law, which admits of no exceptions; and second, that the essential nature of humans is reason. Both are summed up in the famous Stoic maxim, "Live according to nature." Stoics claimed there is nothing in the world with any independent existence: all is bound together by an unalterable chain of causation. The agreement of human action with the law of nature, of the human will with natural order (logos), or life according to nature, is Virtue, the chief 'good' and highest end in life. Stoic virtue, then, is the life according to reason. Morality is simply rational action. It is the universal reason which is to govern our lives, not the caprice and self-will of the individual. The wise man consciously subordinates his life to the life of the whole universe, and recognizes himself as a cog in the great machine." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/stoicism.htm The University of Georgia's 'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'
NOTE: The Stoics conceived of a physical universe being a continuum of cause and effect, this parallels the physicalistic and deterministic views of modern science. They also saw reason as something inborn to our human nature, not a divine intervention suppressing our animal nature, this correlates to the view of modern evolutionary psychology. The Stoic view of the universe as a great machine correlates to the mechanistic view of modern physics and the functionalistic view of modern cognitive science.
Also note the complete consilience between the ethics of the Stoic's maxim "live according to nature" and Confucius's culturally independent view that "everything thrives according to nature", as well as the Stoic "agreement of human action with the law of nature", and the Tao "reciprocal cooperation between people and nature".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARISTOTLE -(Aristotle Greece c. 384-322 B.C.)
"According to Ethical Naturalism, moral judgments are really judgments of fact about the natural world. Aristotle, who was the first great ethical naturalist, believed that good for us is defined by our natural objective." from 'Philosophy: The Power of Ideas' by Brook Moore & Kenneth Bruder
"As suggested by Aristotle, we discover what is 'good' by looking at our purpose as humans. An inspection of our purpose, then, informs us that we are to: perpetuate the species, (evolutionary ethics); preserve our lives (survival instinct); live in society, (social animal instinct); and worship Logos, (live according to nature)." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/natlaw.htm The University of Georgia's 'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'
NOTE: Aristotle, is credited with founding 'empirical' scientific method, that being the method of gaining knowledge through careful 'observation' of nature rather than through revelations of blind faith, or 'solely' through mental reasoning without observation as in Rationalism. Empiricism is the method used by modern science.
His assertions of what 'good' is, i.e. our ethical standard of right conduct, is identical to the Evolutionary Ethics theory based on the 'perpetuation of the species', through personal and social group survival. 'Worshipping Logos' means to know and revere natural order. Logos is an amazing Greek concept, meaning both ordering principle and human comprehension of this order, it encompasses the entire interaction of environment with mind. 'Logos' is the word 'logic' is derived from, and the origin of the suffix '-logy' which we attach to most any field of inquiry and explanation, (ex. psycho-logy, anthropo-logy, geo-logy, techno-logy, ect.).
Logos is the derivation of the religious term 'The Word', which is the interpretation given it by the theologians that deciphered the original Greek texts that comprise much of the Old Testament. "The Word" refers to 'words' which represent our mental conceptualizations 'informing' us of natural order. Logos interprets literally as 'word', 'reason', 'ordering principle', and 'God'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EPICURUS -(Epicurus, c. 341?-270 B.C.),
"Epicureanism, as Stoicism, is practical in its ends, proposing to find in reason and knowledge the secret of a happy life, and admitting abstruse learning only where it serves the ends of practical wisdom. Hence, logic (called by Epicurus 'kanonikon', or the doctrine of canons of truth) is made entirely subservient to physics, physics to ethics. In practical questions the feelings of pleasure and pain are the tests. Epicurus's physics, in which he follows essentially the materialistic system of Democritus, are intended to refer all phenomena to a natural cause, in order that a knowledge of nature may set men free from the bondage of disquieting superstitions." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/g/greekphi.htm The University of Georgia's 'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'
NOTE: Epicurus echoes the assertions of a material world and predicating belief and action on a pragmatic basis. Pragmatism is one of the philosophical theories of truth, which states:
-->Def. -PRAGMATIC Theory of Truth - Belief that a proposition is true when acting upon it yields satisfactory practical results. The pragmatic theory of truth promises, in the long term, a convergence of human opinions upon a stable body of empirical scientific propositions that have been shown to be successful in practice. The Philosophy Dictionary: http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/dy/index.htm
By proceeding on a notion, to test if its results in practice are those predicted by that notion, the belief is verified. This is the essence of scientific experimentation.
Epicurus's use of 'pleasure' as the test of correct behavior is a form of hedonism, paralleled in modern times by: Utilitarianism, which also uses 'happiness' as a premise for ethical behavior; and by, the psychology of innate drives, which has shown pleasure is the primary reinforcer of behavior, and pain the primary deterrer of behavior. Epicurean hedonism, Utilitarianism, and the psychology of inherent drives are encompassed by one of the several contextual definitions of Naturalism as follows:
-->Def. -NATURALISM- (intuitive feelings method) 5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts. The American Heritage Dictionary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS AQUINAS -(St. Thomas Aquinas, France and Italy, c. 1224-1274 A.D.),
"For Aquinas, natural law is a special subset of the divine law which pertains to moral behavior, and is accessible to everyone through reason, including unbelievers." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/natlaw.htm The University of Georgia's 'Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy'
"Aquinas distinguished among kinds of law, ...'Natural Law' is eternal law as it applies to man on earth, it is the fundamental principles of morality, as apprehended by us in our conscience and practical reasoning. Natural law directs us to our natural goal. 'Human Law' is the laws of statutes of society that are derived from man's 'understanding' of Natural Law. A rule or decree of a ruler or government must answer to a higher authority, it must conform to Natural Law." from 'Philosophy: The Power of Ideas' by Brook Moore & Kenneth Bruder
NOTE: By the time the original Greek philosophical texts were recovered from the Saracens, during the Crusades, and brought back to Europe, Christian sociopolitical government was firmly entrenched. The Crusades were in response to the invasion of Europe by the Saracens on a "jihad", a holy war mandating the death of all those who didn't belong to their religious sect. Religious institutions were the only centers of learning during that era, and the people of Europe were fighting a war based on religious ideology; hence Aquinas was not only acculturated to, but politically duty-bound to, his society's religious views.
Acquinas interpreted the works of Aristotle, and had to walk a fine line when deciphering a materialistic philosophy based on reason, into terms acceptable to a culture founded in spiritualistic theology based on revelation, and governed by a church which fervidly enforced religious dogma. Acquinas so brilliantly accomplished this synthesis of antithetical views that he was not only Sainted, but his doctrines later became the official doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church; yet his preservation of the essence of naturalistic reasoning, contained in Aristotle's works, was effective enough to lead to the revitalization of reason over dogma which contributed greatly to the fruition of scientific inquiry engendered in the subsequent Renaissance and Enlightenment eras.
Acquinas reasserted that moral behavior can be discerned from naturalistic reasoning, even by "unbelievers" that accept no religious spiritualism. His assertion that "Natural Law is the eternal law", corresponds to the Stoics view that "all is bound together by an unalterable chain of causation"; as does his assertion that "laws of statutes of society are derived from man's understanding of Natural Law", correspond to the Stoic view that "The agreement of human action with the law of nature, of the human will with natural order, is Virtue".
Acquinas also asserted that political ethics must follow from natural law reasoning, not merely from the subjective views and/or self serving agendas of a ruler claiming divine right. This introduces the important principle that: 'The moral realism of 'objective' naturalistic ethics is the 'only' foundation from which human rights can be derived and asserted'.
Aquinas's approach can be found in one of the many contextual definitions of 'Naturalism' as follows:
-->Def. -NATURALISM- (theological method) 4. Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation. The American Heritage Dictionary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LOCKE -(John Locke, England, c. 1632-1704),
"Locke's contributions to political theory were of major and lasting significance, he is recognized as an articulate advocate of 'natural rights', religious freedom, and as a strong opponent of the divine right of kings. ...At the time of the American Revolution, Locke's political thought was well known to American political leaders and had become considerably incorporated in American popular political thought as well. It had a marked impact on the contents and wording of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. All Americans are directly or indirectly influenced by John Locke." from 'Philosophy: The Power of Ideas' by Brook Moore & Kenneth Bruder
NOTE: Locke's reaffirmation of Natural Rights, derived from naturalistic ethics, is the foundation of liberty, democracy, and civil rights in the modern world. Locke's, (as Aristotle's and Aquinas's), 'Natural Rights' derive from observing nature, discerning man's place in nature to define man's natural purpose, discerning how society serves this purpose, and then reasoning the most reciprocally beneficial functional relation between the individual and society.
Natural Rights involve four cornerstone principles that are rationally essential to forming secure, efficient, and progressive societies, these being:
1) The principle of 'liberty', which affords the flexibility necessary for citizens to reach their full potential by letting them gravitate toward the inherent abilities they are more adept at, and endeavors they are more highly motivated to accomplish, through following personal inclination; rather than being forced into the constraints of a caste system role.
2) The principle of 'democracy', government by the people leading to laws based on human nature through the inherent normative averaging effect of majority's will. By appealing to and eliciting the inherent social instincts of human nature, more effective and efficient social cooperation results, rather than the forced coercion of being subjugated to serve a monarch or aristocracy which is costly and anti-motivational.
3) The principle of 'civil rights' guarantees the most essential freedoms and protections under the law for all citizens, by holding such rights to be 'inalienable', so that they cannot be denied by any subsequent legislation of unscrupulous representatives, even if the public has been deceived into electing them.
4) The principle of 'private property' motivates persons by their, and their loved ones, being able to enjoy the prosperity of their own efforts; and even more importantly, affords the public tangible power. For all the idealistic words and intentions are meaningless without an effective means to actualize them. Power is a matter of having dominion over the resources necessary to actualize one's aspirations. If all property is held by the state, the power of the people is nullified, for no one can access the means to exercise their volitions without state permission, thus negating liberty and self-government.
Guided by such Naturalistic ethical principles of government has enabled the United States, in merely 200 years, to far exceed the standard of living, technological advancement, world influence, and individual freedom of nations that have existed for millennia which don't govern through Natural Rights.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLARD VAN ORMAN QUINE -(Willard Van Orman Quine, United States, 1908-),
"American philosopher and logician, renowned for his advocacy of naturalism, physicalism, empiricism, and holism. Quine took his doctorate in philosophy at Harvard in 1932, and remained a professor of philosophy at Harvard until 1978. ... In 'Epistemology Naturalized' Quine's physicalism: i.e. the physical facts are all the facts, all changes in the world involving physical changes, ... supports naturalism by asserting the philosophical study of knowledge is a branch of natural science, drawing on psychology to explain how sensory stimulation gives rise to scientific beliefs. ... In 'Word and Object', Quine's most famous book, he argues in favor of physicalism as against phenomenalism and mind-body dualism." Oxford & Cambridge Dictionaries of Philosophy
NOTE: Quine's refutation of mind-body dualism, and his assertion that knowledge, (including ethical knowledge), is a physical phenomenon best discerned through the natural science, resonates all the tenets of naturalism and its ethics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSIONS FROM NATURALISM'S HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT:
From diverse and separate cultures, starting with the recorded history of human understanding nearly 2600 years ago, and through our present day, naturalistic beliefs have endured in concept and prevailed in practice. Naturalistic views regarding ethics are a consistent thread through all the major belief systems of humanity throughout history. The essential tenets of Naturalistic Ethics are found throughout all the major religious beliefs of the East and West, and in worldwide Natural Science. These being:
1) The world is an ordered continuum of cause and effect governed by natural laws.
2) Humans are an integral aspect of, and thus subject to, this natural order.
3) Valid human knowledge derives from the cognition, and reasoned understanding, of the ordering principles of nature.
4) Ethical human behavior is guided by acting in accordance with our place in nature's order, our purpose.
The informed reason of logos; 'is deriving ought'.
NON-NATURAL ETHICS
DECONSTRUCTING ALTERNATIVE NON-NATURAL ETHICAL SYSTEMS
APHORISM 1
All non-natural ethical systems are based on merely subjective opinions, religious faith, or authoritative dogma. Naturalistic Ethics is the only reliable and comprehensive moral system, because it is the only system that uses reason applied to verifiable facts to discern morals. Without objective verification, a moral system has no substantive reliability in practice, and lends little confidence in any principles from which to resist immorality with conviction.
RELIGIOUS ETHICS
APHORISM 2
Religions are not comprehensive systems of human understanding, they address only ethics and subjectively derive morals intuitively. To be reliable, intuitions must be verified with reason, for without reasoning morals cannot be apprehended from an individual point of view, but must be accepted on blind faith. The potential for abuse of obscure intuitions, and dogmas of blind faith, make religion a spurious method for deriving correct behavior.
...................................................................
Enduring to this day as the majority's basis for ethics worldwide, are religious belief systems. Essentially religions are ethical doctrines establishing morals, because they do not address the two other major branches of human understanding, metaphysics and epistemology, in any substantive way.
Religious metaphysics basically claims only there is a god(s) that is everything and everywhere, that generates all phenomena in the world. This tenet concerning theological metaphysics sidesteps addressing the issue of the nature of reality, and merely amounts to saying "everything is as god wills it". This answers no metaphysical questions, and in fact theology states flat out that god is 'unknowable' to man, hence religion is NOT a metaphysical system.
Religious epistemology is similarly empty of any information concerning how we come to know things, for if god is 'unknowable' to man, the world is a 'mystery', requiring 'mystical' revelations of 'faith' to know anything, spontaneous insights devoid of observation, reason, or verification. Thus, religions answer no epistemic questions, hence, theology is NOT an epistemological system.
Therefore the only aspect of human understanding religion does address, is Ethics, the prescription of moral behavior. The only specific contents in religions are commandments, duties, and rituals, which are the behaviors any particular sect or prophet prescribes as correct. Hence, religions are simply moral 'doctrines', not complete philosophical systems.
The problem with religion, is that without 'objective' standards for moral behavior one is left with 'blind' adherence to what some arbitrarily designated prophet has said is right, 'subjectively' interpreted by those who claim to be holy men. With no means of objective evaluation or verification of church edicts by individuals in the general population, there is no accountability for the mandates of the denomination. The potential for the leaders of any institutionalized church to self-servingly abuse the unquestioned obedience of such a blind faith system is well known. Those who claimed to represent "God's Will" have initiated holy wars motivated by irrational zealotry, inquisitions attaining confessions of guilt from the arbitrarily accused using torture, and horrific sacrificial rituals to appease unseen gods, evidencing the unreliable nature of 'blind faith'.
NOTE: This brief summation of the failings of religious ethics is directed at the 'unreliability' of that system. As noted in the previous section on the 'History of Naturalism', many religious thinkers and writers have made positive contributions to ethical theory through intuitive insight. Though a naturalist, I regard many religious tenets to be the rudimentary cognition of intellect in grasping the 'innate social mores' of the human animal, thus making their application to unnaturally large civilizations possible. If one interprets religious parables as allegorical symbolism instead of factual history, there is much wisdom to gain from these ancient illustrative mythologies. But, the problem with mythologies is they are implicit and esoteric, leading to the ambiguity which makes them highly susceptible to the afore mentioned abuses. Religions served a valuable purpose in eras when we had little explicit knowledge of how nature works, and it still has a place in the backward societies of today; but in modern educated societies it is time to apply reason instead of faith in deriving more veritable, and thus more reliable, ethical systems.
THE PROBLEM of the MORAL VOID
When one has come to reject religious fundamentalism, and accept reason over dogma as the valid method for establishing moral beliefs, one has to consider the ramifications of such a drastic paradigm shift. A prominent rebuttal religionists use for supporting their position, and in contention to accepting scientific method as a valid view of the world, is their claim that scientific investigation cannot derive morality.
NON-THEISTIC ALTERNATIVES to NATURALISTIC ETHICS
DECONSTRUCTING THE NATURALISTIC FALLACY
APHORISM 3
G.E. Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' is itself a fallacy. The 'ought cannot be derived from is' assertion was a premature judgment, made in an era before natural science understood the physiological processes of the mind, and the functional relation of innate predispositions in eliciting correct behaviors per environmental circumstance. ...................................................................
Many people whether religious or rational in their approach to ethics, accept 'axiomatically' a proposition made by George E. Moore in his work 'Pricipia Ethica' (1903). Known as "the naturalistic fallacy", this proposition states basically "ought cannot be derived from is". This is a direct refutation of the foundation of Naturalistic Ethics.
The "ought cannot be derived from is" proposition is based on the idea that "good", (the premise of ought), is not a 'natural' property, i.e. it is unobservable in nature, and thus "good" is an indefinable concept and unexplainable in terms of natural science, (which discerns through observation what 'is'). Moore asserted the naturalistic fallacy based on problems with semantics, i.e. theories regarding meaning in language, not from problems based on ethics. Hence Moore used a tangent issue of 'semantics' to refute a theory that concerns 'ethics', thus his refutation of natural ethics is derived from an illogical 'straw man' argument.
-->Def. -The 'Straw Man' logical fallacy, -The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
The problem with rejecting both religious dogma AND natural science as valid means for establishing ethical principles, is that it leaves individuals and societies with no standard besides personal subjectivism, or worse subjective state agendas, as the means for establishing moral beliefs.
-->Def. -SUBJECTIVISM- n. 3. The theory that individual conscience is the only valid standard of moral judgment.
If personal subjectivism is the only basis for discerning moral behavior, ethics is reduced to- "if it feels good do it". If state agendas are the only standard for discerning moral behavior, ethics is reduced to- "do it or we'll punish you." The 'subjectivism' rendered by Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' assertion that good is indefinable, is evidenced by the rest of the content of 'Principia Ethica', where he imposes his personal preferences as those which represent moral behavior, without offering any means of objective verification.
The methods of verification used for discerning what is 'objectively' true in the philosophical system of Naturalism, are the same methods the natural sciences use. In 1903, when Moore declared that natural science could not derive the principles of ethics, evolutionary science was in its infancy, and the sciences of genetics, evolutionary psychology, ethology, psychobiology, and sociobiology were nonexistent. Moore lived in an age when mind was predominantly thought of as an immaterial entity, natural science hadn't discovered the now obvious physical nature of mental processes. In short, Moore made a premature judgment in asserting the naturalistic fallacy, by drawing a conclusion from inadequate premises based on a now 'outdated' frame of reference regarding human behavior.
Today the cognitive sciences have indeed made the properties of thought processes observable as natural facts. When Moore asserted the naturalistic fallacy, Sigmund Freud's 'rudimentary' psychological theories hadn't even gained acceptance, let alone the great advances in neurological science that didn't progress significantly until over 50 years later.
The 'naturalistic fallacy' voids any means of ascertaining moral principles, and relegates ethics to an 'even less' reliable sort of subjectivism than religions do. At least religions have 'some' objectifying effect through being interpreted, revised, and pragmatically applied, by many theologians and the general populace trans-historically, lending a greater degree of consensus regarding the 'intuitions' of human morality than the individual 'intuitions' of one particular person or culture. Without at least the general consensus of world religions, the completely personal subjectivism that results from Moore's 'naturalistic fallacy' leads to moral relativism, which is a euphemism for ethical nihilism, since with no definition of 'good' it is impossible to objectively know any principles of correct behavior, which has even more potential for abuse than religious ethics.
-->Def.-"ETHICAL RELATIVISM- is the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles: all morals are valid to the conventions of culture or individual choice. ... It' motto is: Morality is in the eye of the beholder." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
One can see from this definition of 'ethical relativism', that is amounts to no ethics at all, anything goes. For if morals are validated by "individual" choice, then Charles Manson would be a morally valid person; if morals are validated by the "conventions of culture", then Nazi Germany would have been a morally valid culture.
QUOTES........................................................
-(Moore's useless non-ethics, the "Naturalistic Fallacy")-->"If I am asked 'What is good?' my answer is good is good, and that is the end of the matter. If I am asked 'How is good to be defined?' my answer is that it cannot be defined, and that is all I have to say about it." from 'Principia Ethica' by G.E. Moore (Thanks for the "Principles" George!?!?)
-(Semantic not ethical assertion)-->"Thus 'good' (to Moore) denotes a "unique simple object of thought" that is undefinable and unanalyzable. ...Even if good were a natural property, there would still be a (semantic) fallacy. Hence some have proposed calling it, the 'definist fallacy'-the fallacy of attempting to define 'good' by any means." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
-(Naturalistic fallacy not axiomatic)-->"G. E. Moore, in Principia Ethica, declared that the term 'good' stood for a simple, non-natural, indefinable quality, known by intuition, and that attempts to define it were inevitably fallacious. This somewhat obscure view has not generally prevailed, and philosophical inquiry into good continues." Oxford Companion to Philosophy
UTILITARIANISM
APHORISM 4
Utilitarianism defines good as 'that which generates most happiness for the most people'. Happiness is a subjective condition, and is thus elicited by different conditions for different people, lending no real consistency in the utilitarian definition of good. Happiness can only be evaluated 'after' behaviors that were taken to attain it, and therefore lends no prescriptive advice as to how it is to be attained.
...................................................................
There have been several philosophical attempts to establish a non-religious basis for reasoned morality, most notably Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism basically states, "moral behavior is that which produces the most good for the most people". The problem with this approach is that without an objective definition of what "good" is, the doctrine has no meaning. Utilitarians do attempt to define what 'good' is, (all rejected by Moore), in their view that 'happiness', or similarly 'pleasure', is the standard of 'good'. The problem with this approach is that "happiness" and "pleasure" are subjective experiences.
There is some validity in using happiness or pleasure, (or even intuition), as a reinforcing 'guide or test' toward moral behavior as in Epicurean hedonism. But there are problems with making happiness the 'definitive standard' for 'good'.
First, 'happiness' is a subjective quality, and is thus elicited by different conditions for different people, lending no real consistency, nor objective standard in the utilitarian definition of good. Alcoholics are happy when they're drunk, psychopaths are happy when they're causing other people pain, and legal positivists are happy when the populace is completely subjugated; for the conditions that lead to happiness vary with personality, hence Utilitarianism lends no consistent explicit meaning to what 'good' actually is.
Secondly, 'happiness' can only be experienced 'after' the behaviors that have been taken to attain it, it is a 'side effect' experience from having achieved good, rather than what 'constitutes good' in itself; and therefore lends no 'prescriptive' guide as to how 'good' can be accomplished in novel situations, which is the whole point of developing ethical theories.
Thirdly, using 'happiness and/or pleasure' as the definitive essence of good, neglects the fact that many things that are not advantageous to our survival are 'pleasant' and make us 'happy'. State distribution of narcotics would elevate the 'pleasure and happiness' levels of most people, and therefore would be justified using the utilitarian standard of good; but obviously wouldn't result in actually achieving good.
A more objective and fundamental standard of good is necessary to prescribe behaviors that actually accomplish long range beneficial results. Since happiness and pleasure are subjective they are highly susceptible to personal prejudices, and since they are only side effects, one can achieve 'feeling' good even though one's actions haven't actually 'accomplished' anything useful toward realizing the goal one's actions were directed toward.
Every mature individual knows well that the 'needs' of survival take precedence over that which is 'pleasant'. We all do things every day that put survival needs before happiness, because we realize the simple truth that any and all future happiness depends on our needs being met first. The psychologist Abraham Maslow realized this when he constructed his theory of self-actualization, in which he states that drives which satisfy our biological necessities for survival comes 'first' in the hierarchy of psychological needs. Most people would rather not work for a living, yet most people do because they must attain income to meet their needs. Most people would rather not suffer through medical treatments when they're ill, but do so, because the need to 'survive' supersedes any 'displeasure' that must be endured to do so.
Survival as a species is prerequisite, to any 'happiness', 'pleasure', 'compassion', or 'nobleness' that can be attained, and hence is more fundamental in evaluating correct behavior. In fact, our most common existing standards of 'goodness' are 'already' measured by the degree to which behaviors facilitate our survival as a species. Such as the self sacrifice of giving ones life to save others, which we view as 'heroically' good, is an act that ensures the survival of the group one is benefiting, for one's group (or breeding population) is the social animal's evolutionary unit, not the individual. Conversely, self sacrifice that doesn't contribute to the survival benefit of others, which we view as 'suicidal', isn't considered good but rather tragically wasteful.
The very feeling of 'happiness' is generated by evolved centers in our minds that react to our 'needs being met', in other words, survival facilitating behavior is what generates the side effect feeling of 'happiness'. Thus the definitive standard for good is not happiness, good is defined in terms of group survival, with happiness merely being a secondary consequence. Things that make us happy, such as, a hearty meal, provides 'sustenance'; intercourse, 'continues the species'; security in wealth, ensures our future 'needs will be met'; and helping others, which promotes 'reciprocal social cooperation'; are all things that aid our group's survival, and therefore 'consequently' elicit responses from the pleasure centers of our minds, which evolved to reinforce behaviors that provide 'needs'.
'Producing the most pleasure and/or happiness for the most people', often results from good behavior, but as far as establishing a predictive or judicial ethical system it is useless. The backwards reasoning used in Utilitarianism is known to logic as the fallacy of 'Wrong Direction', i.e. it confuses an effect of good for the cause of good; and hence lends no prescriptive guidance for attaining good.
POSTMODERN ETHICAL RELATIVISM
APHORISM 5
Postmodernism is the latest term used to denote the view that humans have no means to attain objectively valid knowledge concerning reality in general, nor ethics in particular. The essentially identical tenets of Postmodernism, misapplications of Chaos Theory, Poststructuralism, Epistemological Relativism, Nihilism, Solipsism, and Acatalepsy; that refute knowledge is possible, are self contradictory, useless, defeatist, amoral, anti-philosophy, anti-science, and dangerous in their acceptance and misplaced reverence of ignorance. Postmodernism voids ethics altogether, asserting as Moore did, that good is just a subjective state of mind, which leads to ethical relativism, or more accurately denoted, moral nihilism. ......................................................................
-->Def.-"ETHICAL RELATIVISM- is the theory that there are no universally valid moral principles: all morals are valid to the conventions of culture or individual choice. ...There are two subtypes: 'Conventionalism', which holds that moral principles are valid relative to the conventions of a culture or society; and 'Subjectivism', which maintains that individual choices are what determines the validity of moral principles. Subjectivism's motto is, 'Morality lies in the eye of the beholder'." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
The current popular philosophical stance of nihilism, renamed Postmodernism, attempts to sidestep ethics altogether with its Postructuralist assertion that neither foundations of knowledge concerning reality, nor a consistent human nature, exist. Postmodernists assert that human's have no valid knowledge of reality nor any social instincts, therefore any ethical system is purely a construct of personal or cultural imagination, thereby making all behavior equivalent in moral validity, simply matters of individual taste or cultural convention, i.e. ethical relativism.
-->Def. -POSTMODERNISM- "Abandonment of Enlightenment confidence in the achievement objective human knowledge through reliance upon reason in pursuit of foundationalism, essentialism, and realism. In philosophy, postmodernists typically express grave doubt about the possibility of universal objective truth." The Philosophy Dictionary http://people.delphi.com/gkemerling/dy/index.htm
-->Def. -POSTSTRUCTURALISM- "The poststructural critique, denies that there are, in fact, structures which underlay the perception of sense data, organization of human behavior as well as which pattern social dynamics. A rejection of the idea that there are natural structures which predate human imagination and/or human activity. If such structures exist independently of human action, they permit one to infer objectively existing natural and/or social law." http://www.tryoung.com/Chaos
Moral relativism is the consequence of accepting Moore's "naturalistic fallacy" as true, for if good is indefinable and inexplicable in the objective terms of natural science, it is meaningless to base actions on anything but subjective or cultural preferences, hence moral relativism is a tautology of moral nihilism, i.e. the assertion that acquiring objectively valid moral knowledge is impossible. The problem with moral relativism's subjectivist version is that by considering all conduct equally valid and all value judgments merely imagined personal preference, one cannot make a distinction as to whether a psychopathic pedophile's torture, rape, and murder of children is any more or less 'right' than the actions of a researcher endeavoring to find a cure for cancer.
The subscribers to moral relativism's conventionalist version of ethics, use a variation of moral relativism by applying the concept to cultures instead of individual's. Though they still believe all moral assertions are just made up from collective cultural imagination, they assert that one should go along with their own culture's ethics merely out of a sense of fitting in with the crowd. This whimsical conventionalist's variation of moral relativism, indulging cultural norms with a "When in Rome do as the Romans do" attitude, hardly impels any basis for social reform, nor just laws. Nor does conventionalism grant any foundation for resisting legislation toward totalitarian government by those 'subjectively inclined' toward power lust who adhere to the authority/obedience system of 'legal positivism', i.e. the agendas of the state supersede the will of the populace. According to conventionalism there are no grounds to assert regimes such as Hitler's or Stalin's were immoral, since their totalitarian systems became the cultural norm of their nations.
Obviously their are serious ethical flaws with the conventionalist view. Blind adherence to authority is completely contrary to the tenets of freethinkers,
-->Def. "-FREETHINKER- One who has rejected authority and dogma, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation." American Heritage Dictionary
If we view ethical behavior as something people just made up, i.e. socially constructed, rather than derived from fundamental truths regarding human nature and humanity's relation to nature; and view the convenience of staying out of trouble as the most sensible way to deal with cultural impositions of arbitrary laws; all concepts of human rights are reduced to the status of myth. Conventionalism leaves any culturally accepted practice as moral; thus cultural norms such as headhunting and cannibalism, to assert status, common to cultures in Borneo; or sewing women's vaginas shut and amputating their clitoris's, to insure virginity and fidelity, common to cultures in the Middle East and Africa; would be considered perfectly moral practices if we believe this view.
QUOTES........................................................
-(Equivalence of postmodernism and nihilism)-->"Extreme skepticism, then, is linked to epistemological nihilism which denies the possibility of knowledge and truth; this form of nihilism is currently identified with postmodern antifoundationalism." Alan Pratt, Ph.D. Humanities Dept. Embry-Riddle University http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm
-(Tyrannical propagandist's dream)-->"Carr concludes, If we accept that all perspectives are equally non-binding, then intellectual or moral arrogance will determine which perspective has precedence. The banalization of nihilism creates an environment where ideas can be imposed forcibly with little resistance, raw power alone determining intellectual and moral hierarchies." Alan Pratt, Ph.D. Humanities Dept. Embry-Riddle University http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm
-"...a twist that must have brought a smile to the little god of irony. Where cultural relativism had been initiated to negate belief in hereditary behavioral differences among ethnic groups - undeniably an unproven and ideologically dangerous conception - it was then turned against the idea of a unified human nature grounded in heredity. A great conundrum of the human condition was created: If neither culture nor a hereditary human nature, what unites humanity?" from 'Consilience' Edward O. Wilson
OTHER ATTEMPTS AT FILLING THE MORAL VOID
APHORISM 6
The obscurity and confusion generated by the undefined and unprincipled post-religious and non-natural ethical systems, has led to a moral void which many attempt to fill with cinematic allegories, technologically returning to a system of ambiguous cultural mythology with similar fantastic scenarios and heroes.
....................................................................
Friedrich Nietzsche predicted a time of moral void between religious myth being discredited, and before science developed enough to answer ethical questions, a time when nihilism would prevail; postmodernism and its consequent 'moral relativism' is that prediction realized. Nietzsche saw ancient Greek theater and the multi-media experience being introduced by his contemporary and friend Ricard Wagner as an intermediate medium to fill in the moral void through art inducing people toward higher goals; modern cinema is that prediction realized.
For many, modern cinema has become the stopgap media for conveying moral principles through allegory. Expanding on the multi-media 'experience' pioneered by Wagner, the cinema conveys the legends and myths of our culture in the storytelling traditions used by many pre-mass media technology societies from the Celts to the American Indians. The problem with cinema is that it is inexorable from the ulterior motive of profit, so that while many movies have endeavored toward the expression of moral truths ala 'fine art', most, especially in the corporate climate of the contemporary U.S., gear their presentations toward mass appeal by merely portraying fear and desire oriented sensationalism rather than resolving ethical problems with their story lines. More often than not, modern films supply only fantasy gratification for what is missing from most people's lives in modern culture's secure yet repressed routine, by exploiting depictions of impulsive sexuality and brutal dominance.
This 'cheap thrill' content often digresses cinematic themes from their potential of expressing allegorical moral depictions as in ancient Greek theater, and substitutes the relatively uninspiring equivalent of a carnival sideshow's. Cinema is a powerfully persuasive media, and as such is vulnerable to abuse in the form of propaganda. Rather than threaten consequences for politically incorrect behavior, propagandists direct behavior by creating a false depiction of a world where the behavior they wish to instill would be the logical course of action 'if' their designer illusion were real. Its interesting to note, that our technological society has manifested a sort of new mythology in the many science fiction themes prevalent in U.S. cinema. Unfortunately, most science fiction movies aren't well researched and often regress back to some form of subjectivism or spiritualism instead of a naturalistic view more representative of actual scientific developments.
-->Def. -NATURALISM- n. 1. Factual or realistic representation, especially: a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature. b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
QUOTES.....................................................
"The problem was the intellectual and cultural crisis Nietzsche later characterized in terms of the "death of God" and the advent of "nihilism". Traditional religious and metaphysical ways of thinking were on the wane, leaving a void that modern science could not fill, and endangering the health of civilization." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
"In 'The Birth of Tragedy' Nietzsche looked to the Greeks for clues and to Wagner for inspiration, believing that their art held the key to renewed human flourishing for a humanity bereft both of the consolations of religious faith and the confidence in reason and science as a substitute for it." Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
ANOTHER IMPEDIMENT TO CONNECTING BEHAVIOR TO BIOLOGY
APHORISM 6
A major factor impeding the recognition that human behavior derives from biologically physical cause and effect processes, is the understandable, yet irrational, emotional reaction of equating the concept of social Darwinism with its 'misapplication' during World War II which resulted in the holocaust tragedy.
...................................................................
Further hindrance to developing a connection between the natural sciences and human behavioral ethics was the emotional reaction to the holocaust of World War II. For decades after the holocaust, anyone suggesting a causal link between human behavior and biology was compulsively and summarily discredited as having Nazi-like views. Yet neither of the alternative theories of cultural nor personal moral relativism, based on Moore's intuitive ethics, can provide any causal reasoning to assert that the holocaust was 'foundationally' immoral; since the Nazi 'culture' conventionally viewed genocide as morally correct, and individual Nazis 'subjectively' felt 'good' about what they were doing.
Then starting around the mid 1960's great advances in the sciences of genetics, ethology, and the cognitive sciences began to illuminate a more rational view of human behavior in relation to biology. With books like "The Territorial Imperative" by Robert Ardrey, "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris, and "On Human Nature" by Edward O. Wilson, public awareness of our evolutionary heritage and its affect on behavior in modern society gained acceptance.
PHYSICALITY of MIND
BIOLOGICAL NATURALISM
APHORISM 1
HUMANS AND THEIR MINDS ARE MATERIAL ENTITIES
On the scale of our human world, material bodies interact in a consistent way. The relational consistencies of material interactions are what we call 'order', which we comprehend as 'natural laws', discerned and described by the overlapping and interdependent natural sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology.
Human beings, and their minds, are material, physical, entities; thus all that is human is formed, sustained, and driven by 'natural laws', including our ethics. Human beings are 'biomechanisms', whose physiological functions are explicable in terms of standard natural science. To refute this is to regress toward immaterial supernaturalism.
???QUESTION: 1) Does the human mind derive from any special constituents outside of natural physical influences?
RELINQUISHING DUALISTIC ILLUSIONS
The last vestige of immaterial supernaturalism, even for many scientifically educated people, is the mind. All aspects of bodily function, other than mind, are well enough understood to be accepted as physical in nature by all but the superstitiously inclined. Mind, like most 'mysterious' phenomena, tends to be classified as being 'mystical', i.e. supernatural, immaterial, or spiritual, seen as deriving from forces beyond the natural world, i.e. outside of causality. It is a rather arrogant tendency of people to assume that anything they don't understand must derive from beyond the natural world. Many automatically assume that - "If I don't know how something can be understood in natural terms, it must be something supernatural." Those asserting supernaturalism use a meaningless excuse for understanding, to slothfully quell the anxiety generated by that which is unknown by rationalizing ones lack of understanding with a catchall empty description, instead of accepting their inadequate comprehension and making an effort toward further inquiry.
Countless phenomena were once believed to derive from supernatural forces, yet when mankind acquired cause and effect understanding of these phenomena, we've readily accepted that they are physical and natural. From this consistent trend of demystification in the history of human comprehension comes the overwhelming inference that all unknowns will eventually be found to have natural physical causes. Previous beliefs regarding the physiological vehicle of the assumed 'supernatural life force' have been: the 'breath' (spiritus is Latin for breath), the 'heart' and/or 'blood' (from Old English bloedsian, meaning to consecrate, as still practiced in the Catholic ritual of consuming the blood of Christ), the 'liver' (liver meaning literally that which gives life), and the 'pineal gland' which Descartes envisioned as the receiver of information from a separate immaterial realm. We now comprehend the cause and effect functions these structures contribute to the 'life process', and thus they have been 'demystified' allowing our minds to conceptually 'grasp' their properties as deriving from material and physical causes, i.e. 'natural' causes.
Mind is no exception to the process of demystification through understanding. Psychology initiated the demystification of mind in the late 1800's, by carefully observing and correlating the products of mind, revealing consistencies between our basic emotionally experienced motives and the various behaviors they elicited. Progessive advances in cellular biology, microsurgery, biochemistry, and other investigative techniques have carried the process of comprehending of mind to higher levels of explicit cause and effect understanding of its more fundamental material mechanisms. The modern science of neuroanatomy has identified the structures in the brain responsible for the processing of all five senses, organ regulation, voluntary motor control, memory, learning, emotion, and reason. Biochemistry has discerned many of the molecular mechanisms of mind by identifying a multitude of neuroactive agents, and their respective functions regarding the integration of brain/body biofeedback, the reciprocal interplay between various specialized centers of the brain, and the regulation of emotive and conscious states. At present all the 'basic' aspects of how the mind works are known, and are explicable through standard physics, chemistry, and biology. Facilitated by the knowledge already acquired has greatly accelerated our advancement toward comprehending all the specifics of how neurological mechanisms interact to cause the processes of mind, and its physical nature is being thoroughly revealed.
The misconception of the dualistic notion of 'material' and 'immaterial' influences in the world, derives from a false distinction between structure and function. That is to say, we perceive the structure of a mechanism as distinct from the process a mechanism accomplishes. We falsely separate what something 'is' from what something 'does', expressed in the correlative grammatical distinction between 'nouns' and 'verbs'. Structural matter we perceive as solid and permanently tangible, we can 'grasp' these things, literally and figuratively, as 'material'; but when material bodies transfer energy from one to another, it is unseen except by its effect on the perceptible objects and these exchanges are ephemerally transient, hence 'force' seems 'immaterial' by contrast. Yet the transfer of energy between material systems is standard physics and hence are 'physical', for modern physics has discovered that matter and energy are the same 'stuff' merely being in different states of homeostasis. All our technological devices involve the exchange of energy between structural parts to accomplish their functions, yet few people claim an automobile of computer possess supernatural powers; while many, even scientifically well educated people, still cling to the idea that these same sorts of forces somehow transcend the physical laws of cause and effect when applied to the processes of the mind. The only reason so many believe the forces involved in technological mechanisms are natural physics, while concurrently believing the forces involved in mind are supernatural, is the comparative lack of popular understanding regarding mind mechanisms.
There is no sentient, intentional 'prime mover', ordaining the laws of physics, nor magic forces from supernatural realms, the 'order' in the world derives from the intrinsic properties of mass/energy. Mind 'is' what the nervous system 'does', and like any complex machine, mind's actions can seem remote from its material structure. Those not learned in mechanics may find the actions of an automobile just as mystical as the brain's, and similarly often seem to attribute spiritual intentionality to that machine when it won’t start and they resort to futilely pleading with it to comply with their wishes, as if it were aware of their desires. Most of us accept that an automobile is physical in nature, and don’t question this based on the fact that its functional process of 'transporting' us seems remote from the description of its 'structural' working parts found in service manuals. Yet we question the physicality of mind because the experience of thought seems remote from the inadequate understanding most people have of neurophysiology.
The evidence that mind is physical, is that physical things like, structural injury of the nervous system, neurosurgery, and psychophamaceutical drugs, can profoundly alter it. If the mind were immaterial it would not be greatly affected by these physical alterations of the nervous system. Though all of the basic physical mechanisms of mind are understood, many still hold on to supernatural notions of mind just because all of the specifics of it are not yet complete. But none of the physical sciences have absolute knowledge in their fields, even less complex bodily organs like the heart are not 'completely' understood, or all heart disease could be easily cured. At one time our lack of understanding led us to believe the heart was the vessel of a supernatural 'life force'. Should we continue this presumption just because all the details of the heart aren't 'completely' understood? Or should we continue inquiry along the lines of the overwhelming inference evidenced by all the discoveries regarding the heart mechanism so far, that inference being, - 'what we have yet to know about the heart will be found by looking for natural physical causes'? Omniscience is not an option for finite human beings, any knowledge we have derives from probabilities supported by the weight of evidence, and the weight of evidence supports the physicality of mind.
The explicit knowledge of mind as a natural phenomenon is demonstrable in the cognitive sciences of: psychology, neurology, and psychobiology, and this knowledge has proven to have found effective application, in the practices of: psychiatry, neurosurgery, and psychopharmacology. A vast weight of evidence derived from these sciences clearly proves that the mind is physical, describable in structure and function in standard physiological terms, a thoroughly natural phenomenon. Human beings are material, physical entities; and as such we are subject to the same cause and effect ordering as all matter. Hence all that is human is determined by natural laws.
QUOTES....................................................................
"The idea of mind as distinct from the brain, composed not of ordinary matter but of some other, special kind of stuff, is dualism, and it is deservedly in disrepute today. The prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for, is materialism: there is only one sort of stuff, namely matter the physical stuff of physics, chemistry, and physiology, and the mind is a physical phenomenon." from 'Consciousness Explained' 1991, by Daniel Dennett, Ph.D. in Cognitive Science
"In short, the mind is the brain. According to the materialists, we can (in principle!) account for every mental phenomenon using the same physical principles, laws, and raw materials that suffice to explain radioactivity, continental drift, photosynthesis, reproduction, nutrition, and growth." from 'Consciousness Explained' 1991, by Daniel Dennett, Ph.D. in Cognitive Science
"Virtually all contemporary scientists and philosophers expert on the subject agree that the mind, which comprises consciousness and rational process, is the brain at work. They have rejected the mind/brain dualism of Rene Descartes, who in 'Meditationes' concluded that "by the divine power the mind can exist without the body"." from "Consilience", by Edward O. Wilson, Ph.D. Biology, Harvard Univ. 1998
"All of human psychology is said to be explained by a single, omnipotent cause: a large brain, culture, language, socialization, learning, complexity, self-organization, neural-network dynamics. I want to convince you that our minds are not animated by some godly vapor or single wonder principle." from 'How the Mind Works" by Steven Pinker, Ph.D. Prof. of Psychology
"Looking at the visual system dispenses with the idea of the homunculus or a little man inside the brain which does the consciousness work. It is an empirical fact that there is not an homunculus in the brain, and even if there were we would still have to go through the same investigation of the homunculus' consciousness, and so on ad infinitum." Daniel Dennett http://www.merlin.com.au/brain_proj/physiol.htm
"Epicurus's physics, in which he follows essentially the materialistic system of Democritus, are intended to refer all phenomena to a natural cause, in order that a knowledge of nature may set men free from the bondage of disquieting superstitions." http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/g/greekphi.htm
"Recently, the use of radioactive or fluorescent tracers that are drawn into nerve-cell chemistry and carried throughout the protoplasm, and techniques of micro-electrode neurophysiology, have brought a new vitality to studies of brain growth. The brain is seen to lay the foundations of even the higher psychological processes before birth. Such discoveries prove that brain growth is inseparable from mental growth. Notions of how consciousness, will, and human understanding came about can never be the same." from 'Brain Development', The Oxford Companion to the Mind
OVERCOMING FALSE DISTINCTIONS GENERATED BY THE MISUSE OF WORDS
Many object to being referred to as a biomechanism, that is because of the 'frame of reference' we evaluate the word 'mechanism' with. Our common experience and use of the term mechanism, applies to machines which are grossly more simple than ourselves, and hence it seems degrading to be compared with such devices.
One of the major stumbling blocks to correct conception is the misapplication of language, this is why philosophy has been predominantly occupied since about 1900 with the problems of semantics, or the use of words to convey accurate meaning. Using words with conceptual parameters that are too narrow creates false distinctions, i.e. the implication that different words signify different meaning when they actually signify synonymous meanings.
A case of how false distinctions between words generate and perpetuate misconceptions, is exemplified by the following incident regarding the long held false distinction between the 'immaterial soul' which was viewed as the animating principle of life and the 'material body' which was viewed as merely the container for this supposed life force. This notion of material and immaterial dualism was challenged by the discovery of DNA. Linus Pauling, who was one of the major contributors to the discovery of DNA, was asked by a reporter if his research diminished the value of life, Pauling responded: "Science does not seek to degrade life by describing it as material, but rather to elevate our appreciation of the material world to include life."
In the broadest sense a 'machine' is simply this:
-->Def. "-MACHINE- 1.a. A device consisting of fixed and moving parts that modifies mechanical energy and transmits it in a more useful form. American Heritage Dictionary
The sense biology uses the word 'machine' is this:
-->Def. "-MACHINE- 4. An intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body." American Heritage Dictionary
The related word 'mechanism' applies to the cognitive sciences in the biological and psychological sense, as these:
-->Def. "-MECHANISM- 5. Biology. The involuntary and consistent response of an organism to a given stimulus. 6. Psychology. A usually unconscious mental and emotional pattern that dominates behavior in a given situation or environment." American Heritage Dictionary
These definitions constitute the definitions that apply to the view of 'Biological Naturalism', and correlate to the subject matter studied in biopsychology and evolutionary psychology. These two fields, and the many specialized fields they encompass and draw from, discern the facts about how the human mind works, through discovering what the natural mechanisms of mind are, and why human nature evolved as it did. These facts provide the premises used for reasoning the theory of Naturalistic Ethics. For once one ascertains what the mind consists of, how its mechanisms work, and how it evolved in relation to the requirements of what the environment necessitated mind to do, (the "is's" of metaphysics), it logically follows as to 'why the mind evolved'. 'Why the mind evolved' logically derives from 'what the mind must do'. 'What the mind must do', is the mind's teleological purpose, which also describes the foundation of natural ethics 'what the mind ought to do'.
QUOTES (WORD USAGE)............................................................
"The 'Idols of the Market-place' are the most troublesome of all, these (false) idols that have crept into the understanding through the alliance of words and names. For while men believe their reason governs words, in fact, words turn back and reflect their power upon the understanding, and so render philosophy and science sophistical and inactive." from 'Novum Organum', by Sir Francis Bacon
QUOTES (MIND MECHANISM COMPLEXITY)............................................................
"There are about @ 30 billion neurons in the human brain and each has about as many as 10,000 contacts with other neurons. The number of synapses (connections) in the human brain is about 10 to the 15th power. ...
"The neurons of one human cerebral cortex would reach over 250,000 miles if placed end to end. The complexity of this organ is obviously enormous! ...
"Neurotransmitters are chemicals which are released into the synaptic space whenever a neuron conducts an action potential to the axon terminals. There are perhaps 100 or so different neurotransmitter varieties in the brain. ...
"Each neuron of the brain (@ 30 billion) can be in only one of two states (resting or acting), the number of functionally different brain configurations would be 2 raised to the 10 to the 11th power; according to Carl Sagan this is a number greater than the number of elementary particles (protons and electrons) in the universe." California State U. Chico http://www.csuchico.edu/psy/BioPsych/neurotransmission.html
NATURAL DESIGN
FUNCTIONAL RELATION BETWEEN SPECIES & HABITAT
APHORISM 2
ALL SPECIES TRAITS ARE PREDICATED ON SURVIVAL AS A SPECIES
Species can only come into existence, and remain in existence, through organisms evolving traits facilitating their kind's perpetuation. Organisms evolve through selection of natural genetic variations that result in altering their structural and biochemical mechanisms. When such alterations effectively operate to convert environmental input into survival facilitating output, that variety's kind is thus perpetuated, they continue to 'exist' as a species; conversely, those organisms that don't possess this functional relation with their habitat 'perish', becoming 'extinct'.
Therefore, since humans have come into existence, and continue to exist, our entire design, (i.e. the structural configuration of our species generated by the natural laws acting in our ecosystem); and our place in that ecosystem, (i.e. the end fulfilled by our organism's design); is predicated on our 'survival as a species'.
???QUESTION: 2) If one accepts that humans are an evolved animal species like any other, does it necessarily follow that for any and all of our behaviors to be correct, i.e. moral, they must be predicated on the evolutionary principle of survival of our species?
NATURALISTIC VIEW OF "OUGHT FROM IS"
Let's review the tenets of Naturalism in general from which its ethics derive that 'survival as a species' is the inevitable standard for moral behavior. This will also clarify how ethics derives from using non-ethical natural terms and premises making ethical properties objective facts, i.e. natural properties.
In more colloquial and less philosophically technical terms...
The first tenet, Naturalism's view of reality, is that all things in the world, including humans and their minds, are physical, material things with ordered causal relations between all things, a continuum of consistent cause and effect relations between objects, the same model of reality held by the natural sciences.
The second tenet, Naturalism's view of how knowledge is acquired, is that all human thought is a consequence of physiological biochemistry and structure, interacting in a causal and functional relation with our environment.
The third tenet, Naturalism's view of moral behavior, is that ethical properties are empirically observable natural properties, such that right conduct is 'necessarily' predicated on behaviors serving the biological purpose of survival for an organism's species.
-->KEY CONCEPT - The reason 'survival as a species' is an 'objective logical necessity' for the behavior of a species to be right conduct, (moral), is that extinct species have 'no behavior', and hence cease to be moral agents. This is a completely objective statement because it asserts an observable necessity devoid of subjective considerations, the principle applies to all life forms. No moral agent = No morality
-->Def. -NECESSARY - 1. Absolutely essential, indispensable. 2. Needed to achieve a certain result or effect; requisite. 3.a. Unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; inevitable. b. Logically inevitable.
LOGICAL NECESSITY AND CORRECT CONDUCT
Effectively executing a procedure to accomplish any goal requires: comprehension of the existing state of affairs, and acting in accordance with the cause and effect steps necessary to convert the existing state to the intended state. Comprehending and acting in accord with the natural laws of cause and effect relations, is necessary for 'rational action'; in other words 'is derives ought'.
A simple example: If ones goal is to get from New York to Chicago, there are many alternative rational actions to do so; i.e. one can fly an airplane, one can take a bus, one can drive their car, and for someone physically fit, with enough time, even a bicycle or walking could traverse that distance. Similarly one could take many different routes, some shorter, some longer. But all these alternatives involve acting in accord with natural laws, (what is), to accomplish this goal, (what ought), because we, as any physical object, are subject to natural laws. One's will is not unconstrained due to being outside of physical causality. The person who merely wills traveling via telekinesis, (what isn't), does not get to his destination, no matter how vehement his volition, or passionately righteous his motivation is for doing so. Similarly, if one chose a route, say the long way around the globe, that wasn't appropriate for the physical capabilities of their mode of transportaion, such as trying to drive a car or ride a bike across the ocean, they would fail to attain their goal because such things aren't consistent with the natural laws. This is exactly why 'ought' DOES derive from 'is'.
Considering a more fundamentally ethical matter, such as the reason for traveling to Chicago, one has to consider the validity of purpose motivating ones behavior. If one were going to Chicago to assist in an environmental cleanup of a toxic waste dump, we would most likely all agree that was a 'good' motive. If one were going to Chicago to dump mercury containing waste products in that city's water reservoir, we would most likely all agree that was a 'bad' motive. This would be an intuitively self-evident judgement to most people. But is their any objective standard from which one could assert that this 'intuited' judgment is 'in fact' the correct one? Why would endangering 1000's of people by poisoning a resource they depend on be intuitively self-evident as bad?
-->KEY CONCEPT - The very biological process that evolved us and thus generated every aspect of our being, including the innate behavioral predispositions guiding our conduct, was directed by 'natural selection' which is predicated on preserving traits that perpetuate a species, therefore all our inherent motives are predicated on 'preserving our kind'.
FUNCTIONAL RELATION BETWEEN HABITAT & SPECIES
Considering the natural laws that evolved the ethical sense of right and wrong conduct inherent to human nature; our entire design, i.e. the structural configuration of our species generated by the ecosystem; and our purpose, i.e. the goal fulfilled by our organism's design; is predicated on 'survive as a species'. This is a necessary truth, as species only come into existence, and remain in existence, through evolving survival facilitating traits. Therefore any existing species is a success story which has survived eons, only through its organism being structured to function as an integral part of its habitat; for when a species ceases to be an integral constituent of an ecological system, extinction results and that species exists no more. Therefore most fundamental behaviors that must be practiced by any species are ones that result in the perpetuation of that species.
From these premises one realizes correct behaviors for a species, or ought, is derived from a functional relationship between organism and environment, or is's. Reconsidering the invalidity of Moor's 'naturalistic fallacy' which defines "is" as an observable natural fact: All existing species, including man, are "is's", all the needs of man are "is's", the habitats from which man derives his needs are "is's", and to survive as a species man must behave, "ought" to behave, in a way that attains his needs from his habitat by comprehending and acting in accord with natural cause and effect processes that achieve this, which are also "is's"; hence man's 'oughts' derive from what 'is'.
KEY CONCEPT--> Refuting the 'naturalistic fallacy', "good" is definable as a natural fact: "That which facilitates the survival of a species defines 'good', and conversely that which deters from the survival of a species defines 'bad', (evolutionary ethics)."
As the Stoics and Taoists first asserted, and resonant throughout history, even in religious eras, is the teleological concept of man as integral part of an ordered universe, derived from this order, living in this order, dependent on this order, and thus the determinant of what makes actions right or wrong is whether they succeed in 'maintaining' mankind in this order. Our continued survival as a species is dependent on correct perceptions and conceptions eliciting correct responses to avoid detrimental changes in ourselves, our societies, and our environment that would threaten sustaining our biological needs. In other words, one must "live according to nature" or one will cease to live, one must behave in accordance with the causal order of natural laws to attain the desired effect, practicing rational action to perpetuate the survival of our kind.
SPECIES-SPECIFIC APPLICATION OF OBJECTIVE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Though the objective standard for right behavior is the biological necessity to perpetuate the species, and hence universal for all living things; it's contextual application by any particular species, is 'species-specific'. Such that, for humans the practice of moral behavior pertains to actions that facilitate the 'survival of the human species' specifically. From a tiger's perspective eating a human is good, but from a human's perspective it certainly is bad.
Another contextual aspect in applying the objective standard of good, which causes much confusion, and contributes to belief in the misconception of ethical relativism, is that even within a specific species, 'group dynamics' have evolved two distinct sets of innate moral behavior. The operative evolutionary unit for social animals is not the individual, nor is it the entire species, but rather the breeding population, or in human terms the societal group. Thus, social animals have evolved innate morality that is group oriented. This does not negate the objective definitive meaning of 'good' being 'the survival of a species', because the 'survival of a social species' is facilitated by, and dependent on, 'group dynamics'.
All social animals divide into distinct groups within a species for the purpose of securing, through territorial possession, the resources any particular group needs to survive. Those within the group innately cooperate, those outside the group are innately excluded, as other groups are 'competitors' for resources. This does not make ethical behavior relativistically subjective, for these dual innate moral codes are universally applicable to any and every group, and objectively necessary.
Let's extrapolate on our earlier 'traveling to Chicago' example, adding that the reason their water reservoir was the site where our 'bad-guy' was dumping mercury sludge was because he was a fundamentalist Muslim on a Jihad mission to save the people of Islam from damnation. This would seem to violate the overall 'survival of the species' predicate for behavior. But when one qualifies this 'survival predicate' on the contingent factor of social animal 'group dynamics' one realizes, as spuriously as the reasoning which elicited his motive is, that his motive is still predicated on his perception that he is intending to help his own group survive.
So, ammending our objective principle of what necessarily defines 'good' behavior in the most general terms, to fit the more species-specific context of social animals like humans:
-->KEY CONCEPT - The very biological process that evolved us and thus generated every aspect of our being, including the innate behavioral predispositions guiding our conduct, was directed by 'natural selection' which is predicated on preserving traits that perpetuate a species, therefore all our inherent motives are predicated on 'preserving our kind'. Additionally, for social animals, like humans, whose perpetuation is dependent on their social group, all right conduct is predicated on 'preservation of ones social group'.
Just because group dynamics is objectively necessary, and is an inherent part of our nature, does not make its application correct without considering the same constraints of natural order which determine the efficacy of any action. Group dynamics must be applied in a way that preserves the functional purpose of the drive, which is to preserve ones group. This purpose is defeated by 'unsound reasoning' inappropriately evoking out-group aggression in a 'counterproductive' way.
Our Chicago bad-guy's misconceptions about the mandates of supernatural beings is obvious; but a more pertinent misconception is his failure to ascertain, and factor in, the reaction from the infidel out-group. The infedel group's drive to protect their own will likewise elicited, resulting in out-group aggression against the Islam group because the menace his actions represent. This unsound reasoning which would lead to the great detriment of the Chicago bad-guy's group, despite his intentions, is an important principle I will address later. By the way, this is the same sort of group dynamic, natural fact, moral mistake the Nazi regime made when it proceeded to violate other nation's sovereignity, creating a menace to the out-groups which allied to protect their own, which resulted in great detriment to the German people.
This distinction between in-group and out-group moral codes, and the objective necessities of cooperation and competition that evolved them, would take another entire dissertation. I mention it here, in brief, because it is a major reason people tend to misconceive morality as purely subjective. For instance, many think of murder and killing in war as being the same behavior, which seems to make human morality regarding taking another human life subjectively inconsistent instead of innately motivated; but in considering the objective evolutionary necessities that inevitably led to group dynamic mechanisms, one can see that murder is taking an in-group life, whereas killing in war is taking an out-group life.
For now, these four explanatory quotes will have to suffice:
QUOTES.....................................................
"We can hear in the song of birds the point and counterpoint of survival and of all social behavior: cooperation and competition. In order to survive, all animals must keep the two themes in harmony." Peter Marler, Ph.D. Cambridge
"For an axiom of biology states that no two groups with the same ecological requirements can continue to coexist in the same habitat; eventually one must eliminate the other through competition." M. Philip Kahl, Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Georgia
"Human nature has a dual constitution; to hate as well as to love are parts of it; and conscience may enforce hate as a duty just as it enforces the duty of love. The conscience of a soldier is his duty to save and protect his own people and equally to destroy their enemies. Conscience serves both codes of group behavior." from 'Essays on Human Evolution' by Sir Arthur Keith, Anthropologist
The Amity-Enmity Complex - "The amity which an animal expresses for others of it's own kind will be equal to the sum of the forces of emnity and hazard which are arrayed against it." from 'The Territorial Imperative', by Robert Ardrey, Anthropoligist University of Chicago
THE PROFUNDITY OF SURVIVAL vs. DARWIN PHOBIA
'Survival as a species' is a greatly underestimated concept regarding its application in ethics. All the behaviors involved in civilized moral conduct are 'based' on survival as a species, and in application survival as a group. Civilizations result from the human social animal mechanisms that insure group survival through cooperative behavior.
The phobic response to Social Darwinism's, (Evolutionary Ethics'), view that survival is the basis of morality, is that 'survival' seems a rather mundane, gross, and even cruel animalistic premise upon which to found all the 'higher' aspirations of man. The phrase "survival of the fittest"
