Different in degree or kind: a book agrees with Adler (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, February 14, 2016, 12:57 (3205 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The moral “sense” comes with self-awareness. You wouldn't have a moral sense if you did not have to weigh the needs of the individual against the needs of the community.
DAVID: You are applying lots of self-awareness to animals. Doesn't work.-dhw: No, the self-awareness is ours! My point is that morality has its evolutionary roots in the individual organism's relation to society, but our human self-awareness leads us to consciously articulate and question codes of behaviour to a degree far beyond animal “morality”.
DAVID: Exactly. You are supporting Adler.-I didn't know Adler agreed that morality has its evolutionary roots in the individual organism's relation to society. Good. As with the quest for knowledge and aesthetics, this has developed to a degree far beyond the original roots. Degree = degree. The rest of the non-argument is covered in the thread on human consciousness.
 
DAVID: This is the point of Denton's new book: Is functional need important or is everything built into structural types created by natural law which then evolve by the patterns set in the beginning? This is thinking that pre-dated Darwin, and Denton feels it is making a comeback. Remember I recognized patterns a long time ago. Denton is teaching me another approach to the whole problem of why things complexify if they are surviving in a truly satisfactory fashion.
dhw:It will be interesting to hear what he means by “patterns”. Since he is an agnostic, I can hardly believe he means a computer programme for all innovations set out by your God 3.8 billion years ago. I have suggested that his “telic law” is the drive for survival and improvement, and that this law is implemented by an in-built, autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (origin unknown) within the cell/cell communities. I eagerly wait to hear his alternative.-DAVID: His basic point is Darwin doesn't work at all. He is looking for a third way, not chance or design, but something that follows natural laws. Like Nagel. This is the hope of non-believers.-When you say Darwin doesn't work, I presume you mean random mutations (nothing new there), or does he dismiss common descent? The hypothesis I have suggested above has absolutely nothing to do with belief or non-belief in God. It is an explanation of how evolution works, whether set up by God or not.