Assumption A: One necessary qualification I need to introduce for this discussion of this topic is I am assuming there will be significant incremental changes and improvement in the overall intelligences [IQ, EQ, Spiritual Q, Moral Q, whatever Qs] of the average human intelligences from herewith and exponentially in the near future [within next 50 years].
And of course I must acknowledge this, Spectrum, as you have qualified it. Only that I am not sure what it grants us. Even supposing that we could, by some process as of yet undiscovered, perfectly map the average neural connectivity of contemporary human beings and the average neural connectivity of the human beings of three thousand years ago in order to compare them, the question would nonetheless remain which is better by moral standards. You state:
But again, I would question whether the “quantity of mirror neutrons” really is a positive change. What permits us to think so? Because it has given us greater compassion, a greater power to perceive this “basic human dignity” to which you refer? But this presupposes what it would prove—namely that this compassion, this recognition of basic human dignity, are human goods. Even were it true that the vast majority of human beings today shared this trait, it could not be taken perforce as a good: for, to say it again, evolutionary changes in and of themselves cannot be presupposed to be improvements. Yet I am beginning to wonder if we might actually disagree on this point?
I believe it is so obvious, the existence of mirror neurons in the human brains – empathy & compassion, differentiate humans significantly from all animals and living things.
To confirm the range and average improvements, one can do an exercise to analyze the critical variables and their changes in reference to the increased levels of mirror neurons between humans and all other animals.
That at the present, slavery is banned all over the world, racism is lesser, cannibalism is not the norm which are contributed by greater level of mirror neurons and many more other criteria, are a demonstration of improvement over other animals as effected by evolution.
Note my
assumption A above which will contribute to greater improvements.
I can bring in more criteria that has demonstrated improvements due to the presence of a higher levels of mirror neurons in human beings.
I don’t deny there will be cons from a higher level of mirror neurons, i.e. blind emotional empathy & compassion but this is not the norm but merely from a natural small percentile of extremes.
Spectrum wrote: One point to note in the evolutionary train, there is a major vein that run throughout from single cell to human being, and that is the drive of continual improvements against constant changes. Obviously there are exceptions but the core drive is always there.
Two questions follow from this.
1.) “Improvements” by what standard?
2.) On what grounds can we hope that a tendency toward improvement over all time and with regard to all living things, will necessarily favor a single species in this specific moment?
Tacit to much of your argument, as it seems to me, is that the human being and the animal are governed by identical evolutionary laws, or that the intercession of reason in the life of man has not in some way qualitatively changed his relation to evolution. Whereas I would say that the evolution of a human being cannot be considered in the same manner as the evolution of an animal, for the very simple reason that the human being as opposed to the animal is capable of establishing societies which evade or mitigate the laws of evolution. A very simple example: how many individuals today would have died were it not for the existence of modern medicine? How many otherwise weak, sick, or freakish individuals are permitted to survive and to procreate thanks to the intervention of human invention? This is not the work of evolution: it is the work of the human attempt to conquer evolution, to eliminate the negative ramifications of evolution.
Does not the very existence of human reason complicate our relation to evolution to such an extent that we can no longer presuppose that evolution will necessarily force us to improve? And must we not also remember that we are but a single species in a myriad of species, and that the majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct in the end? Even if we look at overarching tendencies, I hardly think the odds can be said to stand in our favor. In the interest of our very species, must we not mistrust evolution?
Fortunately humans has evolved with the faculty of planning and control which is imputed into any improvement within a Systematic Model. Are you familiar with a planning and control model for improvement.
In this case the ‘standards’ themselves and all variables are subjected to improvements.
I had stated in my Moral Systems, we start with ideal absolute standards which are subjected to a planning and control system.
Humans and evolution are interdependent and one can influence the other.
Spectrum wrote: My moral System is grounded on Absolute Moral Laws [as a guide only] and basic human dignity [real] which are abstracted from empirical evidences.
It is just like how Science abstracted the Principles of Gravity from empirical evidences then justified it within the Scientific Framework. This is not a presupposition.
There is an essential difference between human morality and all the other cases you have mentioned, as physics or music. In all cases where abstraction to basic principles has proved feasible, there was to begin with a commonality of opinion or experience. We can abstract from empirical evidences to arrive at gravity, because all human beings have the same experience of gravity, or at the very least have an experience which is similar enough to permit that abstraction. We can abstract to the principles of music, because all musicians everywhere agree to certain common rules. The same thing cannot be said of morality: the very fact that there is a question about morality proves that there is no common consensus regarding morality. We begin to question morality because we perceive that there are a definite number of possible moral systems, each of which is incompatible with the next. But we cannot abstract a basic principle susceptible of universal consensus from a specific set of incompatible moral systems. This could even be called the basic problem of morality.
Thus any claim that there is some element shared to all moralities everywhere must be demonstrated. I evidently have yet to understand your demonstration of basic human dignity, which is why I say you are presupposing it. Can you help me see more particularly how you claim to abstract this principle?
I note you are stuck in the Old paradigm of what ‘morality’ approaches are deemed to be. We need to shift to a rational approach such that we can put the processes of Morality within a Planning and Control model to manage the Framework and System efficiently. Also note Assumption A above also applies here.
Spectrum wrote:My theory of Basic Human Dignity is abstracted from the same basis as Gravity from Science and can be easily justified for consensus.
Really, Spectrum, I wonder about this. The consensus of whom? If you are speaking of most people in our Western societies, then I am sure you will find a large degree of consensus. I do not think you will have such fortune if you look to other parts of the world. This to say nothing of other periods in history. In order to speak of consensus, then, you must presuppose human progress, a human progress which for whatever reason is more advanced in the West. Once again we come to the question of progress.
My basis of consensus is based on the majority of humans within my Assumption A, i.e. an incremental trend of higher intelligences of the average person.
Spectrum wrote:One thing about this Basic Human Dignity is we start from a consensus on the elements which are very basic and thus easily is agreeable.
What are these elements? That all human beings have the right to live? Yet I deny this. Or is such an element to be found rather in the idea that denying the basic human dignity of another human being is equivalent to denying one’s own? Yet I deny this, as well. Or do you believe there to be other elements?
With what level of consensus would you rest content? The agreement of most human beings everywhere today? The agreement of most human beings in the West? The agreement of most intelligent human beings? The agreement of most morally developed human beings? In any of these cases save the second, it seems to me this consensus has never existed.
I have mentioned before. My focus is not on the basic rights in his case. The elements I referred to are the common denominators within all humans, i.e.
1. The generic DNA within all humans
2. The common physical structure within all humans
3. The common mental features within all humans
4. The basic self-awareness of all human humans
The combination of the above element generate the core and basic human dignity that is shared by all normal human beings.
I believe all normal human beings can agree [has consensus] they have the above basic elements within them, thus understand all are human beings, i.e. basically and thus the deserved dignity in that respect.
Which human being will disagree on the above shared common features.
It is from the above that we move on to the basic rights.
Spectrum wrote: I believe most philosophies take into account the concept of Basic Human Dignity though not in that specific terms. Note the Golden Rule that is all over [not in Islam unfortunately] is rooted in the concept of acknowledging the Basic Human Dignity. The Bodhisattva vow to be compassionate to all humans and living things from the Mahayanists is along the same line. Note Jesus' 'love your enemies.'
Yet I could as easily mention counterexamples. Consider Plato’s insistence on distinct social strata, or Aristotle’s philosophical defense of slavery. Heraclitus clearly has nothing but contempt for all human beings other than the philosophical. Nietzsche certainly would never have admitted anything like basic human dignity, but would have diagnosed such an idea as but symptom of the decadence of our sick modernity. Many of the philosophers who favored communism or anarchism had nothing whatsoever against mass murder, particularly of given sectors of human society, which seems to me to throw “basic human dignity” far out the window. There are other examples yet one might name. How do you account for these divergences?
Note my definition of ‘What is Basic Human Dignity’ above. I believe your concept of Basic Human Dignity is different from mine. That is why there is always an issue on this concept.
Spectrum wrote: One thing we cannot assume is to project from our current average all round competence as constant but rather we must be optimistic our competence will improve simultaneously in time.
It seems more and more to me that one of our primary disagreements is precisely over the question of “optimism.” I, so far from seeing anything obligatory in optimism, consider optimism to be even somewhat irresponsible, because it makes it difficult or impossible for us to put strict controls on the course of our society or our science.
Now, I see that we are not altogether out of harmony in this, for you say:
I believe ‘optimism’ is intrinsic to many [not all] which is necessary to contribute to the survival of the species. Note the minority of risk takers who risk their life [many died] exploring places never explored before just for the pleasure [internal drive] of it, but their contributions to humanity is great, e.g. finding new lands for an expanding population, new sources of mineral/resources, etc.
Spectrum wrote: Philosophy is the 'conductor' of the symphony of life where Science is merely a major instrument.
This sounds similar to my own view of the ideal, Spectrum. And yet I do not see that science itself submits to the conducting of philosophy. It seems to me that it plays its own music at its own rhythm, quite regardless of all opposition. And it seems to me that in playing in this way, separate from any given symphony, it does not for a moment doubt its right to play in this way. Where then is philosophy? Where is the conductor? You say:
As explained [see below] it is Meta-Science [beyond normal Scientific processes] which I had labeled as Phi-proper, not Western nor any typical philosophy.
Spectrum wrote: Btw, Science is value neutral and it is at best a tool which can cut both ways. So Science within humanity must always be under the supervision of something, i.e. morality and philosophy-proper.
Where ever do you see such supervision?
Question; Is the Framework and System that supervise Science created by Science itself?
As I had stated it cannot be. The establishment of a Framework and System for Science to operate is based on the same process that humans establish Framework and System for all other human made system, i.e. political, financial, corporations, social, MORAL, etc.
One of the main player of establishing human systems is the ‘higher’ planning ability of humans. On top of this we need a coordinator [symphony conductor] to ensure whatever is planned is executed efficiently to meet its defined mission, vision and objectives.
I named this ‘symphony conductor’ as philosophy-proper [not academic philosophy or whichever philosophy you have in mind].
The very statement that science is value neutral to my eyes exposes the basic problem with science. Science, in being value neutral, can neither command nor obey. It cannot accept any moral or philosophical supervision, nor can it impose any such on itself, because any moral supervision demands something contrary to value-neutrality. Science in being value neutral tacitly establishes itself as the single valid authority, for it is the only authority which is value neutral. Supervision of science must therefore be imposed forcibly on science from without, quite regardless of the objections of the scientists. But such imposition today would be considered censorship, oppression, regression. Philosophy does not have the confidence in itself to attempt this kind of supervision, but quails before the merest whisper of censorship. Philosophy does not have the confidence in its own method sufficient to declare before science and all the world that there are certain values by which science must be regulated in both its research and in its products, or that there should be a social or political body in charge of limiting these things. Philosophy, which is, as you say, the conductor of the great symphony, has handed the baton over to the drummer. The conductor has abdicated his post, and we must take cognizance of this fact.
It is taken for granted that any philosophy must learn from science; it is equally taken for granted that no scientist has any obligation whatsoever to learn from philosophy. Philosophy thus has been eclipsed by science. To say it again, philosophy has declined in modern times. That decline cannot be simply weighed against the success of science, and thereby lain aside as the necessary price of progress; for philosophy, as I think you will agree, has an essentially higher dignity than science, and cannot be replaced by science without courting unimaginable disasters. The decline of philosophy thus represents a critical decline for all of humanity.
I believe your version of “philosophy” is Western Philosophy and academic philosophy. My philosophy-proper is meta- of these at a different perspective.
As I had stated, there is a basic function within the higher human brain which is that of a planner and symphony conductor of life which I labelled as
philosophy-proper . If you don’t like philosophy-proper, I can label it “Phi-proper”. What counts is its properties and function not the name.
Science as value neutral is at best a tool, like a knife which can cut both ways depending on who is the user.
Phi-proper use Science as a tool in ‘symphony’ with all other tools of life to optimize [within constraints] the wellbeing of the individual[s] and therefrom the collective.
P.S.
I proposed we give this discussion a break. I believe I have contributed many points as food for thought [some may not be digestible].
My current emphasis is researching [in great depth] on Quran-based Islam [not on Ahadith] and 'Why Islam is SO Evil'. Have spent 2.5 years full time on it. Are you interested in discussing and understanding Quran-based Islam?
Prior to that I was full time on Kant and Morality, thus now I am a bit rusty on this subject of morality at present and don’t have solid knowledge at my finger tips, thus require some effort to express it off hand.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.