tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post3846161508156068696..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Does the Death of God Mean the Death of Morality? A Darwinian Response to Nietzsche's ChallengeLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-86048552010142386002009-11-10T05:30:18.962+00:002009-11-10T05:30:18.962+00:00What about HBD? Not the HBD of scientific racists...What about HBD? Not the HBD of scientific racists, but the human bio-diversity of the Straussians. They believe great philosophers are exceptional human beings, who, following their own moral inclinations, have to lie to placate public opinion and keep themselves from being executed, in spite of the fact that they lead excellent lives.<br /><br />Was Socrates really evil? Smith and Hume can give a good description of public sentiments, but are you really willing to go so far as to assert that popular public opinion is itself morality? If public opinion is only the product of our minds, and public opinion produces immoral, rights violating actions often enough, than what recourse do you have to argue that the act was immoral? At the final analysis all you have is one brain module or function in a struggle for power with another one. That is likely an accurate description of reality, but it is not the basis of a normative morality which is robust to the extant diversity among different human individuals.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03918578746540002029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-54473167580207628142009-10-15T19:00:13.702+01:002009-10-15T19:00:13.702+01:00Tim,
Your talk about "rational defense"...Tim,<br /><br />Your talk about "rational defense" and "rigorous epistemology" suggests that you are looking for a purely rational proof for morality. My fundamental argument throughout my blog posts and in my various published writings is that this is impossible, because moral judgment is not a matter of pure logic, since it depends on moral sentiments. My claim is that Darwinian science supports a Smithian or Humean account of morality as based on a natural moral sense, which requires moral emotions and practical judgment.<br /><br />You can see my reasoning for this position in many of my posts. In particular, I would suggest my posts on "Natural Right and Biology: Marc Hauser on The Moral Instinct," "So What's Wrong with Incest?," and "Kaebnick on Leon Kass's Humean Morality." Even more elaboration can be found in two books: DARWINIAN NATURAL RIGHT and DARWINIAN CONSERVATISM.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-192742816668235272009-10-15T18:32:11.500+01:002009-10-15T18:32:11.500+01:00Dear Larry,
In this post you have elequently an...Dear Larry,<br /><br /> In this post you have elequently and almost successfully completely skirted the core question whenever we try to develop a coherent foundation for a 'good' system of morals. That question is simple: on what basis do we precribe what 'ought-to-be' relative to what we so easily can discribe simple as 'what is'?<br /><br /> You so easily decribe the 'good' and the 'bad' of our human history, and rightly admit the obvious: all humans have the ability to do what we in the west so easily judge as both 'good' and 'bad'. However, you have studiously ignored any attempt at providing a rational defence of why we can or should even judge any action of ourselves or others as 'good' or 'bad' in the first place. <br /> I'm not splitting hairs here, merely asking for some rigourous epistomology on your part, so that you will be more successful going forward.<br /><br />Good luck!Timhttp://masterful-living.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-59578334961945278352009-10-12T21:18:20.188+01:002009-10-12T21:18:20.188+01:00"But even if we doubt the truth of religious ..."But even if we doubt the truth of religious or metaphysical conceptions of morality, we can still sustain morality based on our natural human psychology."<br /><br />Yes, but why should we? Where is there an overarching idea (such as belief in God or some higher organizing principle) that compels us to sustain it? Evolutionary advantage only goes so far as a reasoned argument and few are consciously aware of it. At the group level morality requires conscious acceptance as to source and justification.<br /><br />How can a scientific-evolutionary explication of morality serve this vital function when it is itself in a state of constant progress? You provide a useful argument but the end product is no substitute for that which people know or believe exists beyond our normal awareness.<br /><br />Atheistic human logic could well lead us to a Logan's Run type of future based on Darwinism and cold scientific reasoning. In a Darwinian sense, morality has no real constancy or sacred meaning-- perhaps therein lies its chief appeal for a post-modern world.leadpbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08957439101293478340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-48545273903749674412009-10-09T03:29:58.402+01:002009-10-09T03:29:58.402+01:00Maybe it is because I spent 30 years as a police o...Maybe it is because I spent 30 years as a police officer, but it seems that the more I read and understand Darwinism, the more I am convinced that society is wrapped in a very thin veneer of civility.<br /><br />I am also not convinced that reciprocal altruism (and game or non-zero sum) is really sufficient to establish any kind of real morality, since it seems to me to be more of a business ethic than a true morality. And then again I don't see how kin selection and tribalism can possible be recipes for universal brotherhood. <br /><br />With God being dead and all, I think we are in dangerous times, and that naive liberalism is not going to save humanity from itself. That it why I'm a conservative, an atheist, and a person who sees value in religion and reasonable boundaries for human behavior.<br /><br />Professor Arnhart, I really appreciate this blog. It focuses on so many important questions, and I learn so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-6859073492524104892009-10-07T21:54:52.092+01:002009-10-07T21:54:52.092+01:00Professor Arnhart:
I enjoy your blog. I've c...Professor Arnhart:<br /><br />I enjoy your blog. I've cited it a couple times on my own blog in my discussions with traditional theistic conservatives - mainly Larry Auster. They contend that conservatism is not compatible with Darwinism. They believe that Darwinism is relativistic and can't provide the universal morality that conservatism has to have in order to exist. Without universal morality, conservatism has no intellectual backbone. <br /><br />I'm interested in your take on the matter. Can a person be both conservative and believe in Darwinism/evolution/Human Biodiversity? Thank you.<br /><br />Chuck RossChuckhttp://chuckross.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com