1. It's called nurture you idiot! Nature vs. nurture, ever hear of it? Talk about unoriginal, your column is the same drivel every time out.

Dennis at 8:59AM on Jan 14th 2008

2. If you need to pull out Nazi concentration camp behavior to prove a point, your argument is lost.

Dennis at 9:01AM on Jan 14th 2008

3. OK bible thumpers, time to jump in and embarress yourselves.

Dennis at 9:04AM on Jan 14th 2008

4. And once again, Dinesh, you are trying to force darwinism to explain everything. It's like pointing at the theory of gravity and saying, "Hey! Explain how you affect the geopolitical structure of the middle east! Uh huh, I thought so."

Morality is a phenomenon exclusive to humanity, until we encounter another intelligent species face to face. We don't ask about the morality of cows or wolves or oak trees, yet there can be no doubt that all three are under the effect of darwinist forces.

Yet darwinism has provided genetic reasons for non-sentient species to work in concert. And this is the most primal basis for morality and ethics: the ability of a species to act for the survival of other members of their species. For example, a wolf on their own is terribly limited by the amount of prey they can kill. Wolves, working in concert, can bring down much larger prey and provide enough meat for not just the individual wolf, but for all wolves.

Apes and primates, our evolutionary ancestors, were also pack animals. Each pack has an evolutionary stake in the survival of the whole. If one member thrives at the expense of the others, then that's the genetic equivalent of putting your eggs in one basket. Using primitive altruism, the group as a whole thrives far more effectively than just the individual might.

And what about interpack relations? Why would altruism exist then? In a nutshell, sex. Without genetic colonialism, a specific gene pool is a sitting duck. It takes fifty genetically diverse females to keep a gene pool healthy and discourage inbreeding. Going out and helping another pack gives access to females of that other pack, and vice versa. Sure, you could try to do it by force, but that's a method with far greater risks. After all you might be killed before you have a chance to mate with the new females. Or you may drive the females off.

Morality as you are describing it, Dinesh, is the product of this entirely natural genetic phenomenon coupled with language and most importantly, records. Without records it is impossible for a culture to teach its morality. Morality becomes an invention of the moment, rather than the product of generations. And it is largely self centered towards the betterment of the individual through the betterment of the whole.

So what about the good priest? His sacrifice, in Darwinian terms, was a bid to spare genes that he saw as valuble to the overall group of humanity: the man's concern for his family. Some where in the world there were people who shared genetic commonalities with the good priest. He might not have known they were out there, or who they were, but on a fundamental level he knew that we are all interrelated. By sacrificing himself, he was actually making a genetic bid for the future.

It's early so I'll sum up. Morality is the evolutionary descendant of the ability of organisms to act in concert. It follows darwinist theory because related members in a group have a greater chance of their genes repeating. Purely selfless acts infact help sponsor specific genes in those that we help, and reciprocation gives us comfort knowing that if we help others then with a little luck others will be willing to help us.

Somber at 9:29AM on Jan 14th 2008

5. Where to start in another of D'Souza's comedy of errors:

FIRST: he criticizes Pinker for lifting passages from his own (Pinker's) past writings in his NY Times article. Huh!?! Is a scholar supposed to start from scratch and reinvent the wheel each time he/she writes an article? And this from
D'Souza who is constantly quoting from and referring to his own books!

SECOND: maybe the guy on the bus giving a seat to an old lady is doing it not only because he is a nice guy but also because he wants to appear to be a nice guy to others which perception might, in the future, accrue to his advantage.

THIRD: Father Kolbe believed in eternal life; he believed that in sacrificing his (earthly) life in place of another that he was about to enter a life of perpetual bliss. How is this "selfless" behavior?

FOURTH: I donate blood because I want, by my behavior, to encourage others to do so. And why? Because someday I or somebody whose life I value may need a blood transfusion. Hardly "selfless" behavior.

I could go on, but I believe I have made my point.

emelpe at 9:31AM on Jan 14th 2008

6. I read the linked article. It is LONG and deserves my second closer read. My preliminary reactions thus represent my first read:
-----------
PETER SINGER is quoted. He is an Australian philosopher who is an animal rights activist which (per wikipedia anyway) is more at the PETA level.

But he does NOT value the HUMAN FETUS VERY much. As the unborn child is (he claims) not all that self conscious, it is really not the same as killing a conscious human being.

HEREIN is just ONE of the MANY MANY MANY examples of SHRINKING ethics to ONLY the biological.Shrinking the metaphysical to "ONLY" a physical phenomenon. With a still inadequate explanation of altruism.
==========
The physical and METAPHYSICAL are closely intertwined (in my opinion) and thus I can see where some measure of damage to the brain - or certain external stimuli may change the judgment of persons.

But this article swats at the flies in the room (the smaller moral questions) and IGNORES THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM...

those powered by their own partly Darwinian fueled view of the future...

the DEATH DEALING TOTALITARIAN STATES OF THE 20TH CENTURY...Communists, Nazis, others.

some of the SAME totalitarians whose nightmare vision of the "useful" and the "superior race" who killed off Peter singer's grandparents in a concentration camp...

**************

DNA - a great design at 9:46AM on Jan 14th 2008

7. Great points, Somber and emelpe. Really good answers.

Might I add to the "giving up a seat on the bus" idea - - nice guys like that attract mates a lot faster than those who would make their grandmother stand on a bus.

Morality is a part of our society for hundreds if not thousands of reasons. And it's ever changing.

We don't need the "fear of god" thing or the "I want to be Christ-like" thing to have morals. Far from it - humanists and atheists have a stronger need for our society's morals to work because this is all we have.

brandon at 9:50AM on Jan 14th 2008

8. I actually approve of Dinesh's conversation today, even if I wonder why we're supposed to use Darwin or even Christianity to explain the origins of morality. I have mentioned the pre-Neanderthal tribe found in Bulgaria, who had cared for a toothless oldster, despite the fact that the old man was a drain on the tribe's resources. This was pre-Christian God and before Darwin. So....the question should be "where does Morality spring from?" It's a cool question! I wonder it myself. Why do we go pick up wounded soldiers and carry them home? Why do we respond to auto accidents and help hurt strangers? Could it be that we are kind and good because we hope that others will be kind and good to us? Could it be a mutual compact to keep eachother and ourselves safe and happy? Even the priest who sacrificed himself had the reward in himself of doing something Noble. I look forward to this discussion.

dorothy at 9:51AM on Jan 14th 2008

9. I need to call my bookie to collect: I predicted that Denise would be railing against this piece Satuday evening... and I was RIGHT!!! Thanks to DD, I just cleared a cool ten grand!! (I wish.)

Yawn, DD... yawn. Somber pretty much summed up what I'm incapable of doing until the caffeine perks me up.

grigori at 9:53AM on Jan 14th 2008

10. Well Dinesh the least you could do is get the story on Father kolbe right. They pulled 10 men out to be starved to death as an example for the escape of one man from their hut. It was then he offered to take the place of one of them and led the others in prayer and singing for 10 days before being executed with an injection of carbolic acid. The escapee they died for was later found drowned in the camp latrine. Now we can all speculate as to what drove Father Kolbe but he had been leading resistance against the nazi's from the beginning which is what got him tossed into Auchiwitz and nearly beaten to death earlier. I see fighting the nazi's as being more than a moral thing to do but as the right thing to do ... especially in the defense of his own country Poland.

Jim at 10:00AM on Jan 14th 2008

11. Very nice posts, Somber and emelpe. I think Dinesh is over-simplifying the matter (as he often does). No one would claim that morality stems from ONLY the inherent need of species preservation. Experience and reason contribute to the formation of a moral value system as well. Why does one give up his seat for an old lady or give blood? Reason would tell you that the Golden Rule applies here and that if you were old, you'd want someone to give up their seat or if you needed blood, you'd want there to be sufficient supply. Reason would also have told Kolbe that there would be greater
sufering if a man was ripped away from his family who then would be left with no one to care for them. Of course, like emelpe said, he also lived under the etrnal life delusion, so he had something to look forward to. The greatest philosophers of all time have explained morality and set guidelines for it outside of a Christian context. What Diesh is really trying to say is that
morality couldn't possibly just be human, it must be divine. This is absurd, considering that man wrote about morality around 3000 BCE ("Kindness is a man's memorial" Ptahhotep), that members of all
religions and those of none all exhibit moral behaviors. Reason is a powerful tool, but unfortunately all too often lost in the fog of doctrines.

emma at 10:01AM on Jan 14th 2008

12. while it is the essence of morality to operate against self-interest. The whole point of morality is to do what you ought to do, not what you are inclined to do or what it is in your interest to do.-DD
_________________
Who says the essence of morality is to act AGAINST self interest? Wouldn't it depend on how big of a picture you are looking at? If I help the hungry in Africa, I do so because I realize that we live in a global society and that there is an interconnectedness between all people (which is more prevalent of a thought process in Eastern than Western philosophy). I might also do it because my resources are abundant and theirs are not. A contribution to the planet could always be considered self-interest when you look at the big picture of species, rather than the little picture of persons. And how is "what you ought to do" an answer? Ought to because you were told? Then you are just acting as a blind follower, out of fear or for reward and that is certainly not unselfish.

emma at 10:16AM on Jan 14th 2008

13. ATHEIST

Once again, Dinesh gives the Christian whine:

"I don't understand this. It can't possibly be true. Can you explain this to me?"

At what point is Dinesh going to read Steven Pinker's book and UNDERSTAND it?

Reply to: leading neo-Darwinists have labored hard to provide a Darwinian basis for morality.

Actually, no.

Darwin published his "Origin of Species" in 1859.

Neo-Darwinists are a very small group, in a much larger community of Evolution proponents.

Reply to: Some evolutionists like Robert Trivers extend this logic to explain why we treat even strangers decently and fairly. This is called "reciprocal altruism," which may be translated as "I'll be nice to you, so that you can be nice to me." This entire framework of Darwinian analysis does not even come close to explaining morality. (end)

Dinesh, I don't understand how you got through college.

Learned behavior. We LEARN morality from our parents, and from seeing how our behavior impacts on other people.

It's NOT genetic. Every single human being has to LEARN this.

They make a decision to act altruistically.

William Hays at 10:23AM on Jan 14th 2008

14. Is there such a thing as Morality? Judging by the posts, maybe not.

If we do things to get noticed, that isn't moral.

If we do things because we would like people to do things for us, that isn't moral.

Examples:

"and reciprocation gives us comfort knowing that if we help others then with a little luck others will be willing to help us." Somber

Definition: Not Moral

"maybe the guy on the bus giving a seat to an old lady is doing it not only because he is a nice guy but also because he wants to appear to be a nice guy to others which perception might, in the future, accrue to his advantage."

Definition: Not moral

"nice guys like that attract mates a lot faster than those who would make their grandmother stand on a bus." Brandon

Definition: Not Moral

"Reason is a powerful tool, but unfortunately all too often lost in the fog of doctrines." Emma

Hi Emma,

Correct. However, is there such a thing as Morality? If we do things to hopefully get things or be treated the same, and we do things to get noticed, doesn't this make us selfish and in return not moral?

I would have to disagree with some posts that suggest Morality is a product of Society. No it isn't. We could have crappy parents, no religion, live in a crime riddled city, and still do great things for other people.

On the other hand, we could have terrific parents, be a part of a religion and live in the burbs, but yet end up doing horrible things to people.

I guess what I'm saying here, is that there is no answer for Morality or if in fact Morality exists.

It might just be a made up word.

Botts at 10:24AM on Jan 14th 2008

15. DNA, I despise the Animal Rights vs abortion argument. First of all, standing up for animal rights does not exclude charity towards people. Now unless you are talking about people who defend animal abortion rights over human abortion rights, the argument is ridiculous and irrelevant. Since there is no one who defends animal abortion rights, well...I am sure I've made my point.

As to abortion, you need to realize that your perception of when one is alive rather than existent, is only a belief, not a fact. There is no generally accepted standard for when existence becomes life. Not in science and not among world religions. For many, the fetus must be a sentient being to be considered alive and the ability to feel does not develop until late in the 2nd to 3rd trimester (yes, the sensors are there, but the part of the brain used to translate information is still undeveloped). So contrary to frequently used pro-life claims, a fetus aborted during the first trimester does not feel pain. What you are really defending by saying that at the moment of conception life begins, is th POTENTIAL of the cell to develop into a human. In that, you must believe in predestination, that the existence of the cell already carries some sort of greater purpose. But then, where does predestination begin? When your grandparents have your parents? When your great-grand parents had your grand-parents? These are beliefs, not facts and that is why you cannot force them on the general public.
Where animal rights came into this argument, I never understood.

emma at 10:32AM on Jan 14th 2008