Humanist Ethics

[Iwannaplato]

another flash of irony- Darwinism - survival of the fittest...

Darwin's fitness is never questioned

he's dead

-Imp

Spencer said survival of the fittest, not Darwin. And it's not really correct, at best misleading. Not fittest, but fitting in well enough.

Darwin's got 100 living direct descendants. His genes are continuing to fit in well enough.

(I know, I know, you were joking)

[MikeNovack]

There will still be the sense of sin...just no salvation.

Oh dear, you really insist on your truth mattering to others (that it must shape what THEy believe)

WHY do you suppose they NEED this "salvation from sin" (the experience of it)

I really think the "step back" is useful. So let's consider another theist, who believes God is the first cause. But does not believe in God being as "hands on" as you do. So God created the Earth, and at the same time "geologic forces" intrinsic to the Earth. That does not mean "God created THIS hill (other than having been first cause). Same with life/evolution. God a first cause of life and the process evolution intrinsic to life. The not the same as believing "God created the Tyger (again except as being first cause of what resulted in the tiger coming into being.

There are two ways obligatory social animals can exist. They can have a limited repertory of responses evolved "hard wired". Or they can have a broader, more adaptable set (culture) and this can be "morality". Our theist might believe that of us, human morality co-evolved with us. But again, God just the first cause of life/evolution << evolution didn't have to result in us humans >>

BUT --- it's not just morality you want to mean but a particular use for morality -- to know about "sin" and "salvation".

Sorry IC, when the secularist claims "evolved" (or the theist I described) not meaning to imply morality for YOUR purpose. Probably meaning no more that the (necessary) ability to judge "how will the others of my band react to my choosing action A rather than action B?" The social animal NEEDS that knowledge or its society simly cannot work. In other words, needs to know what is considered right and what wrong. That's not constraint to make either choice, just to be able to predict likely outcomes.

You want it for something else, nothing to do with your society but whether some extremely hands on deity who takes lose interest in your specific choices and who will reward you for doing right and punish you for doing wrong. Does THIS step back, to a fellow theist who simply has a different tae on deity let you see that.

[phyllo]

And it's not really correct, at best misleading. Not fittest, but fitting in well enough.

"Survival of the fittest" means those who are well adapted to the environment survive.

That can be kindness, sharing, cooperation, helping the needy, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

There will still be the sense of sin...just no salvation.

Oh dear, you really insist on your truth mattering to others (that it must shape what THEy believe)

"Your truth"? MY truth? There's no such thing. There is, however THE truth, and we all end up having to "shape" what we believe to it.

WHY do you suppose they NEED this "salvation from sin" (the experience of it)

Well, what's the other choice? Leaving them in it?

So let's consider...

No, let's not. Let's not change topic without finding a solution. That wouldn't be useful at all.

...it's not just morality you want to mean but a particular use for morality -- to know about "sin" and "salvation".

Well, "sin" is just another term for "wrong," or "bad," or "evil." So you can revert to one of those, if you wish. I just happened to use the Biblical terms, but I was merely being poetic. I might have written, "there is guilt, but no remedy." Use that wording instead, and you'll feel less distracted, maybe.

But what "morality" are you thinking of? Secularism, with its subjectivism, has no basis for any, so you can't be referrring to that. I can't be misrepresenting an object which doesn't exist, can I? So according to secularism, I can't be saying anything "wrong" about morality. There's simply no such real-world thing.

Unless you can show how secularism/Subjectivism can account for morality and show that we have a duty to respond to it. But so far, nobody's been able to do it...nobody's even come close...nobody's even tried, in fact. It's that obvious that it's impossible. No one will even take a crack at it.

[Immanuel Can]

And it's not really correct, at best misleading. Not fittest, but fitting in well enough.

"Survival of the fittest" means those who are well adapted to the environment survive.

That can be kindness, sharing, cooperation, helping the needy, etc.

Nietzsche saw through that. He realized that the real advantage lay with the man who let everybody ELSE do the moralizing and the feeling that they have duties to others, and the giving up of resources for their benefit, and the real ubermenschen, the "most fit," if you like, were the ones who could cunningly take advantage of that. Keep up the appearance of morality, but don't feel obligated yourself, and you'll beat the entire field.

So the survival advantage goes to the hypocrite, not the moral person. The one who gets the additional share, the extra caring, the extra cooperation and help, but doesn't actually give any himself comes out much more "fit" for survival than anybody else.

How do you refute Nietzsche on that?

[Iwannaplato]

And it's not really correct, at best misleading. Not fittest, but fitting in well enough.

"Survival of the fittest" means those who are well adapted to the environment survive.

That can be kindness, sharing, cooperation, helping the needy, etc.

Yes, fitting in well enough. Fittest is problematic, even in the old Spencer sense of the word, because it is a superlative. You don't have to be the fittest to survive, just fit enough. Yes, that could be because cooperation and kindness work, well enough, so you don't get eliminated. Spencer chose the superlative "fittest" specifically to frame evolution as a mechanism for social progress and hierarchy, rather than just biological persistence. He wanted people to look at society through the lens of evolution - the superlative helped him argue that cut-throat competition was a scientific fact and a natural law. By his logic, those who rose to the top were the "fittest" and therefore deserved their status, wealth, and power.

For political reasons didn't like the idea that if you survived you were fit enough.

Darwin did take on the phrase eventually, but he never really liked it.

[phyllo]

How do you refute Nietzsche on that?

He was one guy and he didn't do any scientific research.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you refute Nietzsche on that?

He was one guy and he didn't do any scientific research.

Humanists didn't either. They have no explanation for ethics. They just assert them, and hope you'll be too impressed with their empty platitudes to notice they haven't given us any reason to believe them.

[phyllo]

Humanists didn't either.

Wrong.

AI Overview
The phrase "dog-eat-dog" describes an intensely competitive environment where individuals act in their own self-interest, often harming others to succeed. While this mindset is often portrayed as the norm, evidence suggests that cooperation is a more effective long-term strategy for success and survival than ruthless competition.

Here is a breakdown of why cooperation beats a "dog-eat-dog" approach:
1. Superiority in Strategy and Business

Better Results: In business, a "dog-eat-dog" culture often lacks the integration and collaboration necessary to design effective, winning strategies.

High-Performance Culture: A people-centric, collaborative environment is superior to one driven by fear and selfish competition, yielding better long-term results and healthier organizational cultures.

Sustainable Advantage: While competition can exist, it is not "dog-eat-dog." Successful businesses often thrive on networking, partnerships, and creating "win-win" situations rather than destroying competitors.

2. Biology and Evolution

Survival through Cooperation: Contrary to the popular interpretation of "survival of the fittest" as purely competitive, humans and many animals have survived by prioritizing cooperation over competition.

Misunderstood Nature: Even dogs, which the idiom implies act selfishly, are actually highly cooperative within their packs.

Building Communities: Real-world progress and human survival have historically relied on creating connections and community rather than isolated, cutthroat actions.

3. Psychology and Society

Countering Toxicity: A "dog-eat-dog" mentality often leads to a toxic environment. Counteracting this requires empathy, respect, and understanding the needs of others, say researchers in a Medium article.

Building Trust: Cooperation builds trust and deeper relationships, whereas a selfish, "dog-eat-dog" approach often destroys trust and results in fragmented efforts, as explored in a Freedom News article.

In summary, while a dog-eat-dog world exists in some contexts, it is not the most effective way to live or work. Cooperation offers a more sustainable and successful path forward.

AI Overview
In game theory, specifically the Prisoner's Dilemma, betrayal (defection) is often the dominant strategy because it offers a higher immediate payoff regardless of the other player's action. It minimizes potential losses if the opponent betrays while maximizing gain if the opponent cooperates.

Key Benefits of Betrayal (Defection):

Maximum Immediate Payout: If you betray and your partner cooperates, you receive the highest possible reward.

Best Response to Uncertainty: If you cannot trust the other player, betraying protects you from the worst-case scenario (being exploited), guaranteeing a better payoff than if you cooperated and they did not.

Higher Probability of Success against Trusting Agents: Betrayal is most effective when targeting those who trust easily.

Dominant Strategy in One-Off Games: When playing a game only once, betrayal is often the only "rational" choice for selfish actors.

Limitations to the Benefit of Betrayal:

Repeated Games: If the game is played multiple times, betrayal often leads to retaliation, making "cooperation" or Tit for Tat a better long-term strategy.

Collective Disadvantage: While betrayal benefits the individual, if both players betray, both receive a worse outcome than if they had both cooperated (the dilemma).

In summary, betrayal benefits the individual in short-term or single-play scenarios, while cooperative strategies tend to prevail in long-term, repeated interactions.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

From Manifesto 3

[Iwannaplato]

Nietzsche saw through that. He realized that the real advantage lay with the man who let everybody ELSE do the moralizing and the feeling that they have duties to others, and the giving up of resources for their benefit, and the real ubermenschen, the "most fit," if you like, were the ones who could cunningly take advantage of that. Keep up the appearance of morality, but don't feel obligated yourself, and you'll beat the entire field.

That's not Nietzsche. He hated people who has were false and conniving. He considered those the qualities of weak people.

So the survival advantage goes to the hypocrite, not the moral person. The one who gets the additional share, the extra caring, the extra cooperation and help, but doesn't actually give any himself comes out much more "fit" for survival than anybody else.

This is not how he characterized the ubermenschen. He hated hypocrites and gamers of the system are still dependent on the system. He wanted people to create their own values and show greatness.

How do you refute Nietzsche on that?

Well, that would be refuting your weird Nietzsche.
phyllo's answer is quite good.
But beyond that humans as a species refute that. They cooperate and use language to do that more effectively than any other species.
The point is not that caring and kindness is the only way to be fit in evolution. The point is that it is one very effective way to be fit, and many other social mammal species show these traits.

I've noticed that you just go on with your poor interpretations and idiosyncratic word usage, even when your mistakes, regularly uncharitable and/or self-serving have been pointed out. So, I'll just post the occasional critique of your hallucinations. I don't see much point in discussing things with you.

[Immanuel Can]

Humanists didn't either.

Wrong.

AI Overview
The phrase "dog-eat-dog"

I never said, "dog-eat-dog." I used the term that Evolutionists love: "survival of the fittest." You asked AI a wrong question.

But let's go to the only relevant part of all you listed.

2. Biology and Evolution

Survival through Cooperation: Contrary to the popular interpretation of "survival of the fittest" as purely competitive, humans and many animals have survived by prioritizing cooperation over competition.

Let's say that's true. Let me give you that in some circumstances, it will turn out to be an advantage to the "fit" to cooperate with the pack.

What about when it isn't?

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.

Yep, this is what they say.

Let's test them on it. Is it true that they learn about ethics by way of "observation, experimentation and rational analysis"? Is it true that when they talk about ethics, they use "science" to do it? Let's see that.

Which "observations" do they use? Which "experiments" make their case? What "rational analysis" explains how they go from a Darwinian world to one in which moral duties follow? Make the case.

Let's see how they make that sausage.

[Immanuel Can]

Nietzsche saw through that. He realized that the real advantage lay with the man who let everybody ELSE do the moralizing and the feeling that they have duties to others, and the giving up of resources for their benefit, and the real ubermenschen, the "most fit," if you like, were the ones who could cunningly take advantage of that. Keep up the appearance of morality, but don't feel obligated yourself, and you'll beat the entire field.

That's not Nietzsche. He hated people who has were false and conniving. He considered those the qualities of weak people.

You haven't read Nietzsche.

So the survival advantage goes to the hypocrite, not the moral person. The one who gets the additional share, the extra caring, the extra cooperation and help, but doesn't actually give any himself comes out much more "fit" for survival than anybody else.

This is not how he characterized the ubermenschen.

He didn't use those exact words, of course. But it's exactly what he advocated. It was the man who was "beyond good and evil" (and those are his words, and even the title of one of his books) who were the overmen.

But beyond that humans as a species refute that.

Actually, they don't. They cooperate when it suits their interests; but the minute it doesn't, they start to have what we call "ethical dilemmas." That is, what they want to do and what they imagine they should do separate; and some of them decide to do the right thing and some of them don't.

But how does a secularist know what "the right thing" is anyway? What's his test for "rightness'?

[Iwannaplato]

I never said, "dog-eat-dog." I used the term that Evolutionists love: "survival of the fittest." You asked AI a wrong question.

There are many lay people who hang onto this phrase, but biologists and other scientists dislike that term for a number of reasons. I pointed out a number from my perspective in earlier posts. They prefer natural selection.

[Immanuel Can]

I never said, "dog-eat-dog." I used the term that Evolutionists love: "survival of the fittest." You asked AI a wrong question.

There are many lay people who hang onto this phrase, but biologists and other scientists dislike that term for a number of reasons. I pointed out a number from my perspective in earlier posts. They prefer natural selection.

Let's say "natural selection." Now fill out what that means, and you'll find it essentially amounts to "survival of the fittest."

Do you want "natural selection" applied to our social world? Then you're a Social Darwinist. Do you not? Then why are you defying this "natural selection" the cornerstone explanation of evolutionary progress?

[phyllo]

Let's say that's true. Let me give you that in some circumstances, it will turn out to be an advantage to the "fit" to cooperate with the pack.

What about when it isn't?

So what are you saying? They will betray the pack when it suits them?

Then game theory of betrayal applies.

You can betray the pack in isolated short-term cases but if you keep doing it, then the pack will get you long-term.