ant wrote:How does the philosophy of naturalism ascribe intrinsic moral value to a living thing in general, and more specifically a human being?

It doesn't. Why would you think it does?

Studying the evolutionary roots of human behaviour is merely an exploration of the world as it really is, not a system of morality. We cannot derive our moral values from physics or evolutionary theory or chemistry or geology, and natural selection is not a process worthy of emulation or obedience in the human sphere

On the other hand, learning about evolution gives us insight into human emotions and what actually motivates us to act the way we do. It gives us a scientific grounding into understanding that is more useful than strictly metaphoric terms of good and evil.

Regarding your question about the morality of New Guineans eating my grandfather's remains. I don't really think of the familial dead in sacred terms, although I understand that some people do. I know that some Native Americans view their ancestral burial grounds as sacred and I think that should be respected. If my grandfather was in New Guinea when he died and the New Guineans ate him would be a very different context than if a band of New Guineans came over to our country and dug my grandfather's remains up and ate him. Do you see that?

If anything, these examples (including how the Jewish view cleanliness in a moral context) suggest that morality is a product of culture whose acceptance—or rejection—are based on shared belief. And if you dig deeper you will find that many of these shared beliefs are based on emotions that are genetic-based and, therefore, universal to all people.

Interbane wrote:If you need the modern analogue, consider a tribe to be the same thing as a modern isolated town of 100 people. It is not an assumption, our moral emotions and empathy apply naturally within our tribe. Perhaps instinctively is the wrong word, though I think it fits. Our moral emotions simply apply to those we know. Not to say we can't suppress them during arguments or in other circumstances.

A tribe generally is not an isolated entity. Tribal wars are often between villages closely located. If one steals another's goods it's because they have a common use of such things for the same purposes. If they kidnap their women they know that they too have wives and families.
If they kill them in battle it's with the certain knowledge that they can themselves be killed in battle or wounded.
We are not talking about aliens from Mars here.
"Our moral emotions simply apply to those we know." But we know that all humans have the same capacities and feelings in real life.

Flann wrote:If they kill them in battle it's with the certain knowledge that they can themselves be killed in battle or wounded.

As soon as you start to apply knowledge and reasoning, you've gone beyond what I was referring to. You've crossed over into the cultural portion, that part where we reason through our moral codes. Yes, we can see through reasoning that our moral emotions should apply universally. And with a small amount of effort, we can make it happen. But without any learning, our moral emotions apply only to those of our in-group. A stranger could wander in and become acquainted within a day, changing how we perceive him. Or someone from the in-group could be shunned, cast out as an outside. Nothing is permanent, and what we learn beyond base moral emotions changes how they are applied.

Flann wrote:A tribe generally is not an isolated entity.

Then how about relatively isolated? Relative to acquaintance circles in a modern metropolis. This is all beside the point, although I'm happy to clarify if needed. The point is, we can look for modern instances where tribal aspects are emulated.

Flann wrote:But we know that all humans have the same capacities and feelings in real life.

You're missing the point. Our moral emotions do not apply equally by default. That is a learned application. We empathize much more readily with cousin Jim than we do with Abdul Achmed from Iran. Our minds naturally categorize people into in-group / out-group dichotomies, and our moral emotions are applied differently between them.

Interbane wrote:As soon as you start to apply knowledge and reasoning, you've gone beyond what I was referring to. You've crossed over into the cultural portion, that part where we reason through our moral codes.

My point is that even primitive tribes are acting on knowledge they possess from experience of life as humans, which their actions presuppose they know to be the same for the other tribe.
If they didn't and it was ignorance and they were simply acting on tribal instincts it would not be wrong for one tribe to butcher the other.
I'm not denying that tribalism is a feature of human behaviour. There are cultural differences but not sufficient to negate the understanding of common human experiences which include well being and suffering among many others.

Flann 5 wrote:

Interbane wrote:As soon as you start to apply knowledge and reasoning, you've gone beyond what I was referring to. You've crossed over into the cultural portion, that part where we reason through our moral codes.

My point is that even primitive tribes are acting on knowledge they possess from experience of life as humans, which their actions presuppose they know to be the same for the other tribe.
If they didn't and it was ignorance and they were simply acting on tribal instincts it would not be wrong for one tribe to butcher the other.
I'm not denying that tribalism is a feature of human behaviour. There are cultural differences but not sufficient to negate the understanding of common human experiences which include well being and suffering among many others.

Yes, we understand that our enemies are also living, breathing, feeling people just like us. But during war, our brains switch sometimes without us even knowing it and we see them as them—not us. Our brains must prioritize self-preservation above feelings of empathy. But even so, many of our soldiers during the Civil War couldn't being themselves to kill the "enemy" and were shot by their own side as traitors or deserters.

Flann wrote:There are cultural differences but not sufficient to negate the understanding of common human experiences which include well being and suffering among many others.

I'm not really referring to cultural differences. More of an internal switch. I'm sure if you watch your own emotions closely enough under different circumstances, you'll be aware of it. You feel differently toward strangers than you do acquaintances. But to say you "feel differently" isn't informative. So dig deeper, and search for the differences in how you feel. Your moral emotions engage more readily with acquaintances, and are somewhat numb towards strangers. Embarrassment or guilt are elicited more strongly with respect to people you know versus strangers... the same with gratitude, pride, elevation, empathy, etc. If you say this isn't true, then I'd question your clarity of introspection. It's something so obvious that you likely take it for granted.

I'm not saying anything more than what is already self-evident(at least, I think it is self-evident).

geo wrote:On the other hand, learning about evolution gives us insight into human emotions and what actually motivates us to act the way we do. It gives us a scientific grounding into understanding that is more useful than strictly metaphoric terms of good and evil.

Hi Geo, I wonder if you could elaborate on this. How does learning about evolution give us insight into human emotions and what actually motivates us to act the way we do?
I hear explanations of tribal behaviour in humans which seems to be based on evolutionary premises.If these are actual motivators explaining why a tribe behaves in a particular way good or bad how are they making real moral choices? Or are they?

geo wrote:If anything, these examples (including how the Jewish view cleanliness in a moral context) suggest that morality is a product of culture whose acceptance—or rejection—are based on shared belief. And if you dig deeper you will find that many of these shared beliefs are based on emotions that are genetic-based and, therefore, universal to all people.

I'm perplexed here. Cultural morality is based on shared beliefs. O.k. That's very likely. "Many of these shared beliefs are based on emotions that are genetic-based and therefore universal to all people."
I don't follow this, so again maybe you could expand on this. How are emotions genetic based and how can genetic matter create beliefs?
Genes are not purposeful or intelligent on the naturalist view so I don't see how they could produce moral emotions or beliefs.
What is the basis for true human moral values? Interbane thinks we can agree imperfectly on moral values. But historically we haven't or we wouldn't have had these ideologies and people claiming justification for genocides.
I accept that atheists today reject these regime's "morality" but just make the point that moral agreement is a fiction historically.
So there are my questions Geo. Easy ones!

Flann wrote:What is the basis for true human moral values? Interbane thinks we can agree imperfectly on moral values. But historically we haven't or we wouldn't have had these ideologies and people claiming justification for genocides.
I accept that atheists today reject these regime's "morality" but just make the point that moral agreement is a fiction historically.

We can agree on moral values. Yet it is imperfect. The imperfections arise when superstition gets in the way. The sanctity of cows and sacrifice of humans, for example. A egyptian farmers living alongside the river may build superstitions around calling for rain and yearly floods. This sort of cultural mutation can bloat their moral code into something that others wouldn't agree with.

What makes the waters muddier is that although we may have something of a worldwide consensus on morality(superstitious codes aside), that doesn't mean we follow it. Our moral emotions are not imperatives. They are influences, and most people can subdue or ignore these emotions and commit immoral acts.

As if that weren't bad enough, people have a way with rationalizing away moral rules. The thieves who believe they are justified in stealing because of some hair-brained rationale that they've concocted so they don't have to feel guilty about stealing. Or those who justify murder by claiming the person they murdered was pure evil, a witch, or otherwise condemned for whatever reason.

Flann wrote:I don't follow this, so again maybe you could expand on this. How are emotions genetic based and how can genetic matter create beliefs?

Arguably the most famous example of how emotions are genetic based is the warrior gene. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoamine_oxidase_A

Genetic matter doesn't make beliefs. Genetic matter makes the organism, then that organism's experience with the world around it(including other organisms) creates beliefs. Simplistically, the dog that believes a ringing bell will lead to food.

Sorry geo, I'm bored. I'd like to hear your answers as well.

Genes are not purposeful or intelligent on the naturalist view so I don't see how they could produce moral emotions or belief

Lets narrow it down a bit more and ask about emotions in general: do neurons experience emotions?
How does a nueron create wonderment?



Evolution explains emotions?
How does evolution explain the sense of joy I feel at looking at a painting by DaVinci?
Do bonobos like DaVinci or do they prefer Michelangelo?