Traditional Dualistic Morality as Empty Delusion, ditto Free Will

[Robert Anthony]

Morality is anxiously invoked as all that separates humankind from descending into an animalistic abyss of regressive anarchy. The traditionary metanarrative goes: The immanent, perceivable flow of earthlife is not sufficient unto itself; a morally pure, hyperphysical alter-dimension (i.e., Heaven) is required for its origin and regulation. Furthermore, humankind, as distinct from the rest of the natural universe, is alleged to have certain singular, extracosmic intellectual and spiritual faculties, designated as the 'soul' or 'spirit', or in recent times, 'values'. This divinely implanted soul allows 'free will': humans possess internal freedom, the capacity to follow freely chosen, self-caused courses of action; which leads to an absolutist concept of 'responsibility'. This is the classical moral dualism of the West in a nutshell.

Unfortunately, this is a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing, the rabblement's excrescence. Its underlying logical weakness and thin, puerile conceptuality can be successfully exploded even by an intellectually unsubtle 18-year-old such as me in a moment's time. A few assertions of healthy common-sense suffice.

1. Humanity is unmistakably rooted in the animal kingdom. There is no reason to suppose this human species has diverged in some obscure and unique way from the biological foundations laid down in the past, and its history as represented by reconstructed evolution. There can be no real and significant distinction between humanity and the world of biology, or the world in general. There exist no indications that humanity is somehow a quantum leap in the pathway of evolution on planet Earth.

2. Free will is an optical illusion of consciousness. To our limited viewpoint, when we act we are indepedent actors. However, a few seconds reflection brings home the undoubtable conclusion that we, as an outcropping of nature, are subject to its patterns of regularity. All reality exists in a cosmic web of intricate causality. The highly illogical moral concept of free will would mean the destruction of the universe. Free will's supposed logical basis lies in an untenable religio-moral dualization of existence.

3. There is no reason to suppose an immundane, alter-dimensional source of morality, when every bit of evidence and sane thinking points to morality's derivation from conditions on planet Earth.

Who could, straightfaced, dispute these claims?

The only thing that keeps the myth of moral dualism alive is the psychological bullying of insolent-minded priests and the cowardice of their captives.

[Chiron]

First paragraph: no significant or really relevant flaws that I can see.


Second Paragraph: no need to respond. This space intentionally left blank, which it isn't, unfortunately. STRANGE THINGS HAPPEN WHEN THE FULL MOON DRAWS... er... FAR! (http://yellow5.com/pokey/archive/index355.html)
[this is where I show that I'm smart and stuff] In the middle of "a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing," you left out "full of sound and fury" (Remember: omit needless words! But include the needful ones!) [/irrelevant][/semantics][/stuff]

Assertion 1: there is indeed a quantitative difference between humans and the rest of the animals (I don't mean DNA, though that's definitely quantifiable), mainly having to do with our level of technology and culture. However, that, I would posit, is in turn mainly a result of being smart enough with the necessary needs to give technology, civilization, and culture the kicks they needed. But if by "quantum leap" you instead meant, similar to a real quantum leap, a jump caused by an outside force from one level of existence to another (presumably higher) level, then I agree witcha.

Assertion 2: here it gets a bit... dicey. Free will an illusion? Quite possible, but how can you tell? For one thing, it's sorta hard to literally get inside someone's head and see how they think -- the person generally stops thinking right quick. In addition, the act of measuring something changes it: if'n you get right down to the level of individual atoms, then trying to see what caused what will probably be screwed up by you causing something unusual to happen. Think of it as a chaotic system (I hope I'm using the right terminology): a tiny change or a tiny mistake in the initial assumptions will be vastly amplified, making actual results different from predicted results, and much more quickly than you'd think. I'd say that, when you get right down to it, it doesn't much matter whether it's free will or a chaotic system, because both are similarly unpredictable.
In addition, here's an example my physics teacher once gave me: if our eyes were a mere ten times more sensitive, we would see a darkened room for what it really is: a quantifiably (remember, light is packeted/quantum) fewer number of photons reflecting from that part. If our eyes are that sensitive, then mightn't our neurons be similarly sensitive to things small enough that they can't be measured without being changed? It bears thinking about, even if it isn't extremely logical.
And I have no idea where you got the idea that free will makes the universe divide by zero.

Assertion 3: no arguments there.

I'd disagree somewhat with the last statement: some people just learned it that way, and are too inflexible to change (there are some things that are just sacred, and are immune to logic or coffee).

And by the way, welcome to II! Enjoy your stay here. Exits are located at the front and rear of the amphitheater.

-Chiron

[VivaHedone]

1. Humanity is unmistakably rooted in the animal kingdom. There is no reason to suppose this human species has diverged in some obscure and unique way from the biological foundations laid down in the past, and its history as represented by reconstructed evolution. There can be no real and significant distinction between humanity and the world of biology, or the world in general. There exist no indications that humanity is somehow a quantum leap in the pathway of evolution on planet Earth.
Humans are the only species with conscious thought, therefore the only beings able to appreciate our own existence, and to be able to live by reason and logic rather than impulse. It is, I believe, this conscious thought that produces morality.

2. Free will is an optical illusion of consciousness. To our limited viewpoint, when we act we are indepedent actors. However, a few seconds reflection brings home the undoubtable conclusion that we, as an outcropping of nature, are subject to its patterns of regularity. All reality exists in a cosmic web of intricate causality. The highly illogical moral concept of free will would mean the destruction of the universe. Free will's supposed logical basis lies in an untenable religio-moral dualization of existence.
Precisely - if we could experience every electrical and chemical signal moving through our brains, if we were aware of this, the illusion would be shattered.

3. There is no reason to suppose an immundane, alter-dimensional source of morality, when every bit of evidence and sane thinking points to morality's derivation from conditions on planet Earth.
Quite right.