The Nature of Evil

[gbodor]

I do not see the influence of an instrument at the quantum level changing particle behavior as being the same physical phenomena as that of changing something literally by measuring it by air escaping when measuring pressure.

I am not sure if you are oversimplifying this for the speed of making a point. Quantum physics though certainly fascinating, is not without consideration for just how much we do not know. I find it hard to limit a discussion to something that on one hand cannot be defined but on the other hand must be defined by all the things it is not allowed to be in the name of knowledge and what we are capable of observing.

Thanks for this discussion. I am finding it really helpful in clarifying my limited interpretations of what others mean! Something I always need to look at.

Gari

The spin of an electron around a nucleus is influenced by the viewer

The electron is influenced by the fact that a photon must strike it in order to "view" it. It is called the observer affect, and is when an instrument influences the thing it is measuring. There is nothing mysterious here, other than the mysterious nature of quantum physics itself. The observer effect is also found when you check the pressure of a bike tire. Every time you test the pressure, you influence how much air is inside, since a small amount escapes.

[Interbane]

I do not see the influence of an instrument at the quantum level changing particle behavior as being the same physical phenomena as that of changing something literally by measuring it by air escaping when measuring pressure.

It is a different phenomenon, but for whatever reason scientists have lumped it in under the same effect name. Maybe a better example is a radar gun used to measure the speed of a baseball. This is a type of observation of the baseball. Small invisible bleeps of energy strike and bounce off the ball, slowing it by undetectably small amounts. Since the ball is orders of magnitude larger than the quantum particles striking it, the impact is infinitesimal. But it still exists.

Imagine the object in motion being not a baseball, but a photon. Now, whenever you strike with with another quantum particle, the impact is nearly equal. The object can't possibly be "observed" without there being an impact upon it.

I find it hard to limit a discussion to something that on one hand cannot be defined

What can't be defined? Evil? I'm pretty sure we have a conceptual definition for the term. We might not agree upon that definition, but it exists. I do believe it can be defined, and I do believe one party is closer to the truth than the other.

[johnson1010]

Quantum uncertainty doesn't have to do with a conscious mind observing a thing. it is when a quantum state interactes with another quantum state.

So the "observer" is not a consciousness, but another quantum particle interacts with it... and all particles are quantum.
Quantum by the way, is not supposed to be a scary word. It just means that we are talking about bits of information. So instead of a ramp of information, data comes in definite steps.

Electrons can be in electron shell 1 or 2. There is no electron 1/2 shell... So quantum refers to the... lets say "digital" nature of nature.


Here's a couple videos from sixty symbols, where physicists talk about physics.

Great videos, good discussion of uncertainty.





Basically speaking, in practical terms to observe anything you need to detect a particle that has interacted with it. Electrons interact with photons. That's what they do. No matter how lightly you hit an electron with a photon the photon changes the electron. The uncertainty in quantum systems is a strictly physical issue, and it is well understood.

[Harry Marks]

Dawkins and Ruse are saying that evolution inexorably moulds our behaviours towards survival (of genes) and their disposable survival machines such as bodies.
Our moral behaviours of empathy,co-operation and competiton are programmed in genetically and by evolutionary success.
Co-operation and love are not objectively morally good and it's just an illusion to think they are. They are adaptations like any other physical adaptation for successful survival.

I think there is a misunderstanding of the concepts in this formulation. What makes a positive trait morally good is that one chooses to exercise it for the common good. The role of biology can be extensive without making it completely deterministic. Courage is a moral good, at least potentially, and people differ in their biological inclination to be brave. When someone chooses to face their fears and act for the good, they are not doing so because their genes commanded it, but because they understand the purpose and use that to overcome biological resistance.

The tendency to display a trait may evolve biologically, but culture also has much to say about behavior, and individual choice likewise. The intersection of these comes when culture informs us as to what is morally good and we exercise our personal power of choice to put that principle into practice.

[Flann 5]

Quote:
Dawkins and Ruse are saying that evolution inexorably moulds our behaviours towards survival (of genes) and their disposable survival machines such as bodies.
Our moral behaviours of empathy,co-operation and competiton are programmed in genetically and by evolutionary success.
Co-operation and love are not objectively morally good and it's just an illusion to think they are. They are adaptations like any other physical adaptation for successful survival.




I think there is a misunderstanding of the concepts in this formulation. What makes a positive trait morally good is that one chooses to exercise it for the common good.

Hi Harry. This requires a determination of what "good" is and how behaviours towards this end have a moral quality. Can the ends not justify the means if you want resultant "good" for the majority?
Some cultures consider headhunting good for their society. Honour demands retaliation in kind and it's even a manly courageous sport which grants status and is considered good for the tribe for a number of reasons.
www.kashgar.com.au/articles/headhunting

The role of biology can be extensive without making it completely deterministic. Courage is a moral good, at least potentially, and people differ in their biological inclination to be brave. When someone chooses to face their fears and act for the good, they are not doing so because their genes commanded it, but because they understand the purpose and use that to overcome biological resistance.

I don't doubt for a second that we are capable of morally good acts. The question is what is it's foundation and source?
Richard Dawkins says he can rebel against his selfish genes. I'm sure he can, but what material part of him can do this if we are reducible to genetically programmed brains and evolutionary conditioning for survival?
So we have understanding and can see there are moral goods we can purpose. Why, bigger brains?
You probably think it would be morally good if headhunting tribes made peace treaties and were less violent. They don't think so and in the end you are making a subjective judgement which may be moulded by your culture.

The tendency to display a trait may evolve biologically, but culture also has much to say about behavior, and individual choice likewise. The intersection of these comes when culture informs us as to what is morally good and we exercise our personal power of choice to put that principle into practice.

What culture informs you can be drastically different from what culture informs headhunters so how can your culture arbitrate right and wrong?
In ancient Semitic and Arabic cultures hospitality to strangers was and is today, a requirement. The Jews were commanded not to oppress the stranger within their gates with the reminder that they were strangers in Egypt and knew how this felt.
That's a moral command which might run contrary to other culture's traditions.
We have the moral capacity to judge right and wrong, but how a mindless unguided and material evolutionary process geared only towards survival could produce this in us is the question.

[Interbane]

I'm sure he can, but what material part of him can do this if we are reducible to genetically programmed brains and evolutionary conditioning for survival?

The part you're missing here is repeated quite often. There is much we do that isn't reducible beyond cultural evolution. You can trace causation down to lower order systems, but you lose information when you do. The way things work together forms a pattern that only emerges at a certain level of complexity.

You're aware that cultural evolution is different from evolutionary conditioning, right?

[Flann 5]

The part you're missing here is repeated quite often. There is much we do that isn't reducible beyond cultural evolution. You can trace causation down to lower order systems, but you lose information when you do. The way things work together forms a pattern that only emerges at a certain level of complexity.

You're aware that cultural evolution is different from evolutionary conditioning, right?

What I seem to hear is that when you trace things back you come to a common ancestor for chimps and humans. It's suggested that if evolution had panned out differently and we were related to less rambunctious primates we would be constitutionally more peaceful. That is genetically.
It's explained that the in-group out-group phenomenon is an evolutionary reality. At what point in history did humans stop behaving in this programmed way,and start making moral judgements which were not about survival and replication of genes?
Cultures evolve but why should morality suddenly emerge?
It's all emergent apparently,consciousness,rationality,language and morality for starters.

Were the guys on the savannah behaving or making moral choices? It's obvious too that if animals co-operate to hunt it doesn't take a large brain to see that co-operation can be efficient for survival.

[Interbane]

What I seem to hear is that when you trace things back you come to a common ancestor for chimps and humans. It's suggested that if evolution had panned out differently and we were related to less rambunctious primates we would be constitutionally more peaceful. That is genetically.

Whether or not it’s true about the rambunctious primates part, you’re right that it’s genetic. Our behavior is influenced by our genetics. It is not determined by our genetics. It is determined by a mixture of genetic influence and cultural influence. There are areas where cultural influence overrides genetic influence, an obvious example being wearing condoms.

It's explained that the in-group out-group phenomenon is an evolutionary reality. At what point in history did humans stop behaving in this programmed way,and start making moral judgements which were not about survival and replication of genes?

Most of what we do is still about survival and replication of genes, but only by proxy. That proxy are the influences of our genes in the form of emotions and desires. We pursue sex and food and power. In many instances, culture overrides this. But they are still dominant pursuits in all our lives.

You ask when this transition happened. Well, much of what we do today are based on those moral emotions that evolved in tribal life. So morality has always been there. With the rise of language and thus cultural evolution, we developed the ability to see how our moral emotions should apply to all humans universally, and not just tribally. Yet we still struggle with this today.

We are still cruel to each other and commit heinous crimes. You call it sin, or that we've fallen. The reality is that it's a consequence of morality developing in a tribal setting. Not that we don't have damaged people as well. Read "The Psychopath inside" by James Fallon.

[Harry Marks]

Flann 5.
I will leave it to minds more knowledgeable than mine to determine whether there is some supreme guiding agent. But I am satisfied that a purposeless process could result in social, intelligent animals like us who therefore think about their impulses and reflect on what logic may inhere in them.

I think this reflection, which I take to be a God-inspired process, enables us to compare our treatment of outsiders, those not in our group, to the standards we have learned for behavior within our group. This process of universalisation and internalisation of morality is what the NT consolidated from prophetic leads in the OT. So we figure out that Samaritans can be good, though unclean, and that headhunting diminishes us (heh - our skulls, especially).

[Flann 5]

Flann 5.
I will leave it to minds more knowledgeable than mine to determine whether there is some supreme guiding agent. But I am satisfied that a purposeless process could result in social, intelligent animals like us who therefore think about their impulses and reflect on what logic may inhere in them.

I am curious Harry as to why you are satisfied that a purposeless process could result in social,intelligent animals like us?
Is it not more reasonable that such beings are the result of purposefulness rather than the contrary?
And why do you think that we are the result of a purposeless process?

I think this reflection, which I take to be a God-inspired process, enables us to compare our treatment of outsiders, those not in our group, to the standards we have learned for behavior within our group.

And now I'm confused. You think this reflection to be a God inspired process and yet are satisfied it's the result of a purposeless process.How do you make sense of this? Do you mean that if you grant that it is a God inspired process then what should follow?

I think this reflection, which I take to be a God-inspired process, enables us to compare our treatment of outsiders, those not in our group, to the standards we have learned for behavior within our group. This process of universalisation and internalisation of morality is what the NT consolidated from prophetic leads in the OT. So we figure out that Samaritans can be good, though unclean, and that headhunting diminishes us (heh - our skulls, especially).

I think there are generalisations here. After all most violence is domestic. My view would be that we have an innate sense of right and wrong but we are fallen and tend to regard our own interests as primary,which includes our family,and can radiate out.That's not to say that such relationships are devoid of real love. Altruism is real too.
It's not for nothing that politicians appeal to our not always impartial interests,when looking for our votes.
As for the biblical teaching,that's a vast subject.
The categories of clean and unclean were primarily ceremonial to inculcate the lesson of moral good and evil and the need for demarcation between these.This is expressly stated.

No one thought that foods were inherently unclean but they were designated so as a visual lesson and reminder.
Such things can be literalised to apply to people in a prejudicial way.
There is a sense that the Israelites were given distinct ceremonial and moral laws which were in contrast to the other cultures around them.
The whole point of the new testament is that the ceremonial law and sacrificial system were shadows and not the thing itself.Circumcision is a spiritual operation on the heart (or inner nature) by God as Paul puts it,for example.

Of course in real terms there is no ultimate moral difference since the Israelites failed to keep these laws and thus were as much in need of salvation as the Gentiles.
The difficulty with subjectivism is that everyone can make up their own morality and you cannot point to an objective standard to measure any of this. It's your opinion however well founded you believe it to be,and others can disagree and have their diametrically opposed moral opinions for better or worse.