Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Spinozasgalt · #1 by **Spinozasgalt** » Jun 13, 2014 9:51 am

Here it is, roughly.

Natural Law views of ethics are often theistic and the ones I have in mind here take the NL of Aquinas as paradigmatic: they reject particularism in favour of a principled approach to the right, hold that something's being good is best construed as its being perfecting or completing of a being, and affirm something like the natural goodness found in the work of Philippa Foot. I think some of these views make a stronger appeal to natural teleology than others (contrast Finnis with Feser with the latter being on the more teleological side of things) and it's with these that give this more gainful employment to teleological concepts that I'm concerned here. In particular, I'm wondering about the appeal and its prospects on an evolutionary picture.

Now, Foot's view has been met with quite a bit of criticism. The critics I have in mind have tended to suggest that the prospects for this "proper function" view of flourishing after the advances of evolutionary biology are uncontroversially forlorn. Theistic Natural Lawyers, however, like to borrow the detailed strengths of Foot's view and yet suggest with her critics that evolutionary science consigns her view to the dustbin. However, they take this consignment to be a nontheistic problem. That is, they suggest that theism has the resources necessary to save this view, and this view having much else to recommend is thus for its prospects on theism taken to be a good recommendation of theism. I'm interested in just what the theistic view does for natural goodness.

To begin with, I'd like to keep evolution in view here. So, if the theist is a creationist then they are not the theist I have in mind. I need theism and evolution together to bring out my question - even if there might be reasons to suspect that theism and evolution do not fit together. I suspect that many Christians who understand this Natural Law view are more likely to be "evolutionists", anyway.

My question is, how can the theist employ teleological concepts in non-arbitrary ways without appealing to evolutionary causal histories? I've seen one proponent on this view gesture vaguely towards a comment from Fodor, but that's hardly discharging the rather large explanatory debt here.

Maybe I should've made this thread before Mick was banned. :shifty:

Calilasseia · #2 by **Calilasseia** » Jun 13, 2014 10:34 am

Well the entire problem here, is the assertion that a magic entity exists, without which we purportedly cannot have natural laws of any sort, let alone ethics. That assertion remains completely bereft of evidential support, therefore all subsequent assertions arising therefrom are pure speculation and fantasy. As a corollary, the absence of any evidence for any external magic entity, let alone one purportedly dictating how the universe and its contents operate, renders the entire question of employing teleological concepts meaningless. The existence of a large body of empirical evidence, informing us that teleology is completely absent from the biosphere, on its own tosses all attempts to erect a teleological view thereof into the bin. The only people who persist in trying to do this, are people who possess an emotional attachment to their particular brand of magic entity, and who think that they can conjure their beloved magic entity into existence with apologetic spells.

Since the entire magic man hypothesis is nothing more than a grand exercise in assertionism, it can safely be discarded, until a supernaturalist does the hard work of providing real evidence for such an entity. Even if a supernaturalist succeeds in this endeavour, there's no prior reason to suggest that said evidence will point to the magic entity of Aquinas, and adherents of Aquinas' particular brand of apologetics, which again pushes the entire question being asked above into the realm of speculation and fantasy. Not that this will stop supernaturalists from pretending otherwise, and pretending that their apologetic spells magically dictate how reality works.

Nebogipfel · #3 by **Nebogipfel** » Jun 13, 2014 11:14 am

Isn't Natural Law just deriving an ought from an is?
(Not a rhetorical question BTW...)

Spinozasgalt · #4 by **Spinozasgalt** » Jun 13, 2014 12:21 pm

Calilasseia wrote:Since the entire magic man hypothesis is nothing more than a grand exercise in assertionism, it can safely be discarded, until a supernaturalist does the hard work of providing real evidence for such an entity. Even if a supernaturalist succeeds in this endeavour, there's no prior reason to suggest that said evidence will point to the magic entity of Aquinas, and adherents of Aquinas' particular brand of apologetics, which again pushes the entire question being asked above into the realm of speculation and fantasy. Not that this will stop supernaturalists from pretending otherwise, and pretending that their apologetic spells magically dictate how reality works.

Sure. But I'm wondering, as I say in the OP, whether or not there's a particular sort of tension created when two views are combined.

Nebogipfel wrote:Isn't Natural Law just deriving an ought from an is?
(Not a rhetorical question BTW...)

It's a hard question to answer in few words. There are at least two different views of how we grasp knowledge of the basic goods on this sort of Natural Law view. One, derivationism, is committed to rejecting Hume's Law as a principle of logic. While the other, inclinationism, is not (or so it seems to me). I suspect that Feser is a derivationist, but I haven't read enough of him to be sure. Whereas Finnis is definitely an inclinationist.

zoon · #5 by **zoon** » Jun 13, 2014 5:00 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:Here it is, roughly.

Natural Law views of ethics are often theistic and the ones I have in mind here take the NL of Aquinas as paradigmatic: they reject particularism in favour of a principled approach to the right, hold that something's being good is best construed as its being perfecting or completing of a being, and affirm something like the natural goodness found in the work of Philippa Foot. I think some of these views make a stronger appeal to natural teleology than others (contrast Finnis with Feser with the latter being on the more teleological side of things) and it's with these that give this more gainful employment to teleological concepts that I'm concerned here. In particular, I'm wondering about the appeal and its prospects on an evolutionary picture.

Now, Foot's view has been met with quite a bit of criticism. The critics I have in mind have tended to suggest that the prospects for this "proper function" view of flourishing after the advances of evolutionary biology are uncontroversially forlorn. Theistic Natural Lawyers, however, like to borrow the detailed strengths of Foot's view and yet suggest with her critics that evolutionary science consigns her view to the dustbin. However, they take this consignment to be a nontheistic problem. That is, they suggest that theism has the resources necessary to save this view, and this view having much else to recommend is thus for its prospects on theism taken to be a good recommendation of theism. I'm interested in just what the theistic view does for natural goodness.

To begin with, I'd like to keep evolution in view here. So, if the theist is a creationist then they are not the theist I have in mind. I need theism and evolution together to bring out my question - even if there might be reasons to suspect that theism and evolution do not fit together. I suspect that many Christians who understand this Natural Law view are more likely to be "evolutionists", anyway.

My question is, how can the theist employ teleological concepts in non-arbitrary ways without appealing to evolutionary causal histories? I've seen one proponent on this view gesture vaguely towards a comment from Fodor, but that's hardly discharging the rather large explanatory debt here.

Maybe I should've made this thread before Mick was banned.

By “non-arbitrary” do you mean without bringing God’s dictates into the question? I suspect that any Christian who says that moral law does not depend on God is coming close to heresy. There wouldn’t be much point in being a Christian and arguing that ethics is independent of God’s will?

Just googling ”Natural law”, I hadn’t realised at all how much it was a standard part of Christian and pre-Christian thought, and central to ordinary English and American common law.

The sense that some things are naturally right or wrong does seem to be deeply embedded, it’s almost impossible for an atheist (like me) to argue for some ethical position without taking something of the kind for granted. I think in the end this sense does have to come down to our evolution as social animals, and especially our unique ability to predict each other by guesswork based on the assumption that we operate teleologically.

kennyc · #6 by **kennyc** » Jun 13, 2014 5:12 pm

Yoko Ono! What do I win?

Rumraket · #7 by **Rumraket** » Jun 13, 2014 6:16 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:Here it is, roughly.

Natural Law views of ethics are often theistic and the ones I have in mind here take the NL of Aquinas as paradigmatic: they reject particularism in favour of a principled approach to the right, hold that something's being good is best construed as its being perfecting or completing of a being, and affirm something like the natural goodness found in the work of Philippa Foot. I think some of these views make a stronger appeal to natural teleology than others (contrast Finnis with Feser with the latter being on the more teleological side of things) and it's with these that give this more gainful employment to teleological concepts that I'm concerned here. In particular, I'm wondering about the appeal and its prospects on an evolutionary picture.

Now, Foot's view has been met with quite a bit of criticism. The critics I have in mind have tended to suggest that the prospects for this "proper function" view of flourishing after the advances of evolutionary biology are uncontroversially forlorn. Theistic Natural Lawyers, however, like to borrow the detailed strengths of Foot's view and yet suggest with her critics that evolutionary science consigns her view to the dustbin. However, they take this consignment to be a nontheistic problem. That is, they suggest that theism has the resources necessary to save this view, and this view having much else to recommend is thus for its prospects on theism taken to be a good recommendation of theism. I'm interested in just what the theistic view does for natural goodness.

To begin with, I'd like to keep evolution in view here. So, if the theist is a creationist then they are not the theist I have in mind. I need theism and evolution together to bring out my question - even if there might be reasons to suspect that theism and evolution do not fit together. I suspect that many Christians who understand this Natural Law view are more likely to be "evolutionists", anyway.

My question is, how can the theist employ teleological concepts in non-arbitrary ways without appealing to evolutionary causal histories? I've seen one proponent on this view gesture vaguely towards a comment from Fodor, but that's hardly discharging the rather large explanatory debt here.

Maybe I should've made this thread before Mick was banned.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/06/12/belated-response-to-ed-feser/

laklak · #8 by **laklak** » Jun 13, 2014 6:52 pm

Well, hogs evolved naturally and are full of natural, tasty goodness.

tolman · #9 by **tolman** » Jun 13, 2014 9:10 pm

zoon wrote:The sense that some things are naturally right or wrong does seem to be deeply embedded, it’s almost impossible for an atheist (like me) to argue for some ethical position without taking something of the kind for granted. I think in the end this sense does have to come down to our evolution as social animals, and especially our unique ability to predict each other by guesswork based on the assumption that we operate teleologically.

Surely, we are typically given simple instruction in what is right and wrong while growing up. Possibly vague, possibly contradictory, but something we can use to be (or to help us to construct) some fairly simple rules.
Not necessarily a case of something being 'naturally' right or wrong, but being taught that at least it is right or wrong for us, here, now.

Though in reality, while we may have simple ideas about what is right and what is wrong, does that not often come down to defining words to make things appear simple?
Murder is morally wrong, but killing someone isn't necessarily morally wrong at all if there is sufficient justification, and is less wrong than murder if there are certain mitigating circumstances.
Taking things from people without their consent may or may not be morally justifiable depending on the context.

The idea that some things are 'naturally' right or wrong is certainly attractive, as is the idea that Right and Wrong are deity-defined.
But surely much of the attraction is that having made the claim, we effectively declare the matter beyond debate, and don't actually have to think about it any further.
Even if we end up playing with category boundaries to allow for cases where the law may not quite be what we want, we can still claim that we're being true to what is Divinely/Naturally Right.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" -> "*We* declare that these 'truths' are true, while accepting that some people have (and some people will) declare otherwise"

mrjonno · **#10** by **mrjonno** » Jun 13, 2014 9:34 pm

The idea that some things are 'naturally' right or wrong is certainly attractive

Not as attractive as there being a right or wrong in the first place.

Never found those terms particularly useful, there is behaviour that promotes the survival of society and behaviour that damages its chances of survival.

Murder is 'wrong' not because life is sacred, not even because most none of us want to be killed but because societies that spend their time tolerating kill each other will be crushed by those societies that are quite happy to kill people in other societies but not their own

Spinozasgalt · **#11** by **Spinozasgalt** » Jun 14, 2014 1:45 am

zoon wrote:By “non-arbitrary” do you mean without bringing God’s dictates into the question?

Nah, I have something else in mind. I'll see if I can get it across. You see, the Natural Lawyer (at least on derviationist and derivationist/inclinationist hybrid views) has to tell a certain kind of metaphysical story about human nature to furnish their view with ends and proper functions, but the more and more that this story is based in our biology then the more potent becomes the threat that biological science will intrude upon the metaphysical story. To make matters worse, the explanatory success of the biological sciences is so attractive to a view of ethics that is looking to avail itself of theoretical virtues. And if, as many suspect, evolutionary biology and natural goodness have rival heroes, then the stories have to maintain their separateness or else one will overwhelm and fracture the narrative of the other.

kennyc wrote:Yoko Ono! What do I win?

The greatest cover of a Katy Perry song in living memory. :whistle:

tolman · **#12** by **tolman** » Jun 14, 2014 1:55 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:Nah, I have something else in mind. I'll see if I can get it across. You see, the Natural Lawyer (at least on derviationist and derivationist/inclinationist hybrid views) has to tell a certain kind of metaphysical story about human nature to furnish their view with ends and proper functions, but the more and more that this story is based in our biology then the more potent becomes the threat that biological science will intrude upon the metaphysical story. To make matters worse, the explanatory success of the biological sciences is so attractive to a view of ethics that is looking to avail itself of theoretical virtues. And if, as many suspect, evolutionary biology and natural goodness have rival heroes, then the stories have to maintain their separateness or else one will overwhelm and fracture the narrative of the other.

How do people manage to create language-based definitions of 'regions of behaviour' to label Right and Wrong which don't undermine the whole process. With such definitions being either oversimplistic or hedged around with qualification, how can they be claimed to be both useful and 'natural'.

Spinozasgalt · **#13** by **Spinozasgalt** » Jun 14, 2014 2:13 am

tolman wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:Nah, I have something else in mind. I'll see if I can get it across. You see, the Natural Lawyer (at least on derviationist and derivationist/inclinationist hybrid views) has to tell a certain kind of metaphysical story about human nature to furnish their view with ends and proper functions, but the more and more that this story is based in our biology then the more potent becomes the threat that biological science will intrude upon the metaphysical story. To make matters worse, the explanatory success of the biological sciences is so attractive to a view of ethics that is looking to avail itself of theoretical virtues. And if, as many suspect, evolutionary biology and natural goodness have rival heroes, then the stories have to maintain their separateness or else one will overwhelm and fracture the narrative of the other.

How do people manage to create language-based definitions of 'regions of behaviour' to label Right and Wrong which don't undermine the whole process. With such definitions being either oversimplistic or hedged around with qualification, how can they be claimed to be both useful and 'natural'.

I'm not sure I understand your question(s). Are you asking how moral principles as the Natural Lawyer employs them can ever hope to be complex enough to range over the "regions of behaviour" that they're taken to range over?

Darwinsbulldog · **#14** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jun 14, 2014 2:16 am

To some extent, ALL theists are creationists. This includes theists who actively debunk commoner-gardener creationist types eg Francisco Ayala and Kenneth R. Miller are both "theistic evolutionists" who spend considerable effort debunking creationist nonsense. There are others of good scientific repute: Francis Collins, Simon Conway-Morris, etc, etc
But in informal writings, both men express sentiments that evolution cannot account for all of the human condition. Miller speculates about god acting at the quantum level, and Ayala expressing the uniqueness of the human soul. In other words, biological evolution, chemical evolution and the origin of the universe cannot explain how things got to be, or at the very least leave room for god as an explanatory force in nature.
Thus, lurking in the background is vitalism, god as the unseen deux ex-machina of subtle effects. Unlike standard creationists, they do not assert their notions as fact. But scientists like these enjoy good scientific credentials [and in Ayala's case, good theological training] and so many people will take notice of what they say-both their science, and their theological views.
In fact, there is no good reason to think that science cannot map "reality" as far as these former theological questions go. Non-magical souls [there is no evidence for magical souls] break down into personality, self, animal behavior etc. There is no reason why biology/psychology cannot investigate non-magical souls.
Evolution tells us that humans are highly social, and investigators how found rules on how social and eusocial animal societies work. eg Hamilton's Rule rB > C

At no stage in the proceedings has it been necessary to write gods into scientific models, nor has any science had to give way to a supernatural model.

Indeed, cultural and religious assumptions about the nature of man [lol sexist!] has blinded researchers from seeing natural goodness, intelligence etc in other animals. The tradition of the great chain of being, and humans alone on a pedestal under god and angels has warped our thinking for millennia.
Charles Darwin helped break this spell.

tolman · **#15** by **tolman** » Jun 14, 2014 2:45 am

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm not sure I understand your question(s). Are you asking how moral principles as the Natural Lawyer employs them can ever hope to be complex enough to range over the "regions of behaviour" that they're taken to range over?

Essentially, yes - behaviours are complex with all manner of fuzzy properties existing in a multidimensional arena where boundaries between sets of behaviours are subjective and open to dispute.
Descriptions of behaviours that people can philosophise about seem unavoidably oversimplified.

If someone is going to say that the natural law doesn't prohibit the taking of life but the unjust taking of life, is that not basically just a pointless renaming of the issue from what is 'natural' to what is 'just'?
And isn't what is 'just' what we were hoping to find out in the first place?

RealityRules · **#16** by **RealityRules** » Jun 14, 2014 4:24 am

Nebogipfel wrote:Isn't Natural Law just deriving an ought from an is?
(Not a rhetorical question BTW...)

That's intertwined with the naturalistic fallacy ...

Both the 'is'-to-'ought' fallacy & the 'naturalistic fallacy' are problematic

They do, however, have issues in common with what is being opined & discussed in this thread -

... all teleological concepts (purpose, ends, meaning, etc.) are determined by the nature of those things to which purpose and ends pertain; therefore, what-is does determine what-ought-to-be.

Calilasseia · **#17** by **Calilasseia** » Jun 14, 2014 7:52 am

Nebogipfel wrote:Isn't Natural Law just deriving an ought from an is?
(Not a rhetorical question BTW...)

Nietzsche was particularly scathing about this, when he castigated various brands of metaphysicians for seeking to impose by fiat a given metaphysics upon the world, not because they actually cared about the nature of the universe and its contents, but because they wanted to impose their pet ethical framework upon the universe and its contents. The individuals who attracted particular scorn and derision from Nietzsche, were those "philosophers" who sought to use metaphysical assertions a a means of trying to support the real assertion of importance to said "philosophers", namely, that their pet ethical schemas were purportedly an intrinsic part of the fabric of the universe. By trying to make their pet ethical schemas as integral to the universe as gravity, those pursuing this project recognised early on, that success in this endeavour would make if far easier to impose those ethical schemas upon an otherwise suspicious populace. The fact that ethical precepts don't operate in the same way as physical laws such as gravity, is one of those inconvenient facts they hope no one will notice during the pursuit of this project.

In short, it's all about exerting behavioural control over others.

Aquinas and other enthusiasts for "natural law" apologetics are playing this particular game on a grand scale. It's all about erecting the assertion that their pet collection of moral strictures are purportedly an integral part of the fabric of the universe, so that they can then use this assertion as purported "justification" for whatever acts they choose, in pursuit of their enforcement of conformity to their pet sets of moral strictures. Asserting that a magic man exists, has purportedly made said pet collection of moral strictures an integral part of the fabric of the universe, and purportedly requires us to conform thereto, facilitates with dangerous ease the usual abuses of power on the part of the self-appointed "elite", whose members purportedly possess this allegedly "privileged" brand of "knowledge" about the universe. Protecting this assertionist castle in the sky from relevant scrutiny, simply requires the erection of more assertions about the choices that said magic man has made, with respect to whom said information is dispensed, and how. Cloaked thus in yet more assertionist armour, the elite can then safely impose their chosen strictures at will, and in addition, erect the usual apologetics to convince themselves, that their base pursuit of persecution of people that they don't like, is actually the implementation of a grand plan carrying with it the highest possible seal of approval. Thus the satisfaction of the urges of the elite, become sanctified as purportedly constituting a "moral crusade".

It's nothing more than the disguising of "kill all who fail to serve me and do as I say" as an "ethical programme". Which becomes nakedly apparent, the moment brutal measures are deemed apologetically to be "necessary" to further said "programme".

tolman · **#18** by **tolman** » Jun 14, 2014 10:04 am

If this:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
is an example of 'Natural Law' thinking, then I'm puzzled who could possibly take it seriously.

For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong.

Eating is good, as long as someone doesn't eat too much.
Self-preservation is right, Sometimes.

That's as much use as a cookery book telling people to beat a cake mix to the right consistency and then to cook it for long enough, but not too long.
Not necessarily wrong, but utterly useless.

Nebogipfel · **#19** by **Nebogipfel** » Jun 14, 2014 11:45 am

tolman wrote:If this:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
is an example of 'Natural Law' thinking, then I'm puzzled who could possibly take it seriously.

For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong.

Eating is good, as long as someone doesn't eat too much.
Self-preservation is right, Sometimes.

That's as much use as a cookery book telling people to beat a cake mix to the right consistency and then to cook it for long enough, but not too long.
Not necessarily wrong, but utterly useless.

And apart from anything else, it's all based on the assumption that the universe has a purpose and exists for a reason.

Calilasseia · **#20** by **Calilasseia** » Jun 14, 2014 10:54 pm

Nebogipfel wrote:
tolman wrote:If this:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm
is an example of 'Natural Law' thinking, then I'm puzzled who could possibly take it seriously.

For example, to nourish our bodies is right; but to indulge our appetite for food to the detriment of our corporal or spiritual life is wrong. Self-preservation is right, but to refuse to expose our life when the well-being of society requires it, is wrong.

Eating is good, as long as someone doesn't eat too much.
Self-preservation is right, Sometimes.

That's as much use as a cookery book telling people to beat a cake mix to the right consistency and then to cook it for long enough, but not too long.
Not necessarily wrong, but utterly useless.

And apart from anything else, it's all based on the assumption that the universe has a purpose and exists for a reason.

To be more rigorous, the assumption is not just that the universe exists for a reason, because valid reasons for the existence of the universe include testable natural processes. The assumption erected by supernaturalists, is that the universe purportedly exists for a reason imposed upon it by their favourite magic external agency, A "reason" that is then used to justify the process I documented in my previous post.

Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Re: Evolution, Natural Law & Natural Goodness

Who is online