Duty is a moral obligation to something which is created by what society deems as right or wrong.

Notice that all you’re actually saying is that duty is a duty to do something. You’re just concealing it by using synonyms. A moral obligation is merely a duty to some moral authority, Lawrence. Which brings us back to asking, what is a duty? You can’t define it by referencing itself. But how will you define it, then? You see, the reductionism you’re complaining about is inherent in your view. I’m just pointing that out. Duty is a biological mechanism for survival in your view. Apparently it’s a cultural mechanism for survival also. But so what? How do either of these actually entail duty; that is, obligation or responsibility? One cannot be responsible or obligated to some biological or cultural process. The evolutionist worldview just does not have the tools available to provide an adequate explanation of duty; just as it doesn’t have the tools available to provide an adequate explanation of intentionality. It cannot accept that these things are properly basic, because this would mean that they are grounded in something other than the natural universe (ie, in God)—so it attempts to reduce them to naturalistic processes; all the while claiming that God “doesn’t explain anything” and complaining that theists are being reductionistic in their critiques of naturalistic evolution.

As regards deontology, I was talking about the study of duty; not about some specific philosophical position. I take deontology to entail a little more than ethics, since it it covers epistemic as well as moral duties.

Duty is a moral obligation to something which is created by what society deems as right or wrong.

Just because duty is guided by a biological mechanism does not remove the importance of duty as it exists because of the cultural importance of it. Just because the cultural is related to evolution does not mean that it is unimportant. Duty arises by culture, as does responsibility to others.

Deontology offers nothing as a philosophy. It is based on the popular morality, a subjective state asserting that the current status quo on what is right or wrong is how things have always been. How these universals are decided seems very subjective and therefore not very useful.
The idea of culture minimizes the importance of deontology because we cannot ascertain absolutes through a filter such as culture, the current status quo. If there are absolutes, then there is a method to find them but deontology is not a satisfying approach. ( I apologize if I have misstated anything, it has been awhile since I have taken philosophy)

Ought still exists, but it cannot be found in the court of popular opinion.

A good philosophy neither assumes humans are just calculating machines (homo economus) nor are they completely reciprocating beings (homo reciprocans) Instead, a better philosophy seems to be desire utilitarianism, though I am still reading up on it to understand the finer details.

But is this true? Does it remove the duty of responsibility? I don’t think so, and there is no evidence to say that it does.

What do you mean by “evidence”? Does the argument I just gave not count?

My biology does lead me to think your biology should act in a certain way, but culture has an influence on the mind that my biology created and culture has an influence on your mind as well.

So what? Culture is just an evolutionary adaptation; a mechanism for survival and reproduction.

You aren’t engaging with my argument at all. You’re just telling me how you think duty evolved. But I know that already; my whole argument is that, if duty is nothing but a biological mechanism for survival and reproduction, then it is not actually duty. To say that one person has a duty toward another, under your view, is actually just to say that one animal has a biological imperative to behave in a certain way toward another. But that is not what duty is. If duty is nothing more than a biological imperative, then it does not exist as we think it does, and as we talk about it in the study of ethics (for example, as exemplified in moral responsibility). You can affirm that if you like, but as indicated by your hedging, it’s a high price to pay. It removes deontology from your worldview entirely. You can’t use the word “ought” any more because it has no meaning. Such a view is simply unworkable, and certainly unbelievable.

But is this true? Does it remove the duty of responsibility? I don’t think so, and there is no evidence to say that it does.

Responsibility is related to the network ties that we have. For our survival we must ensure the survival of others. Responsibility is made stronger by culture than evolution as society picks the rules that it wants. Which is why you are hard pressed to find a universal rule, no, not even killing/murder.

Responsibility comes from a mix of biological imperative and cultural enforcement of those things that gradually evolved in society. Cultural rules became more and more institutionalized and began to trump responses that were considered unruly. Killing, disobedience, and so on. Christianity was one of several attempts to convey a certain society’s rules in an institutionalized manner.

So again, evolution = stronger ties stronger ties + larger groups= rules=culture;

The evolution of culture now leads to a mandate of why we should or should not commit certain acts, but it also leads to rules that have a certain amount of liquidity through time. What was once obscene, dangerous, subversive, and so on is now commonplace. Ancient rules no longer hold as much sway because the world is changing and if the system of rules cannot address these changes then they can no longer hold a place in the direction of culture.

time = cultural evolution = shifting institutionalized rules.

My biology does lead me to think your biology should act in a certain way, but culture has an influence on the mind that my biology created and culture has an influence on your mind as well.

The assumption seems to be from your previous comment, and correct me if I’m wrong, that evolution says that we are a machine. However, this is wrong, all evolution say is that we are not a blank slate.

Culture isn’t everything and neither is biology. What humans are, is a combination of both. This is why people given the worst of situations can rise out of them and why people given only the best chances and the purest environment can fall.

Responsibility is evolved by nature (strong ties) and defined and strengthened/weakened by culture (folkways and mores of the time frame) and biological makeup.

1. You didn’t actually address the issue of responsibility at all. Nothing you have said refutes my original argument in post #9.

2. Why does it matter if we propagate? Ex hypothesi, as an evolved animal with the ability to consider the question rather than simply acting as evolution dictates, I choose not to pass on my genes. I choose to ignore the obligations I feel to others, because I know that these are just an evolutionary mechanism. I can’t be obliged to be obliged if duty is just a mechanism for survival and reproduction, and I don’t care about either. You can’t very well argue that I have an obligation to act according to these mechanisms when obligation is itself a mechanism. All you’d really be saying is that your biology is causing you to think that my biology should cause me to think that I should behave in a certain way. So what? If you’re going to reduce responsibility to biology, then you aren’t talking about responsibility any more.

Instead, we must cooperate with others if we wish to propagate our genes. If we are evolved to be connected with other people this allows our genes to be passed on. Ties are the means of our existence, breaking these ties would go against evolution and the selfish gene. The idea you propose is of the selfish gene but you assume it means personal selfishness, not the best means of propagation. Ignoring the importance of ties denigrates humans to mindless sex machines, but you knew that already, that was your intention.

Your argument is that we need to lie to children because there is nothing in nature that makes us responsible to others.

No it isn’t.

My argument, supported by the works above, is that humans have a mechanism that makes them care for one another, which make us responsible for the survival of one another.

But responsibility is obviated by evolution, so your argument is fallacious. If we really did evolve from lower forms of life, and all we are is complex physical organisms governed by nervous responses adapted to ensure reproduction and survival, then “duty” is an empty word. It has no meaning and no power. Ex hypothesi, once I am aware of the nature of the universe, and of my evolutionary origins, I have no reason whatsoever to be constrained by the “responsibility” mechanism which those origins selected for.

Regards,
Bnonn

How do we know that we are in favor of god? While somewhat flawed, the important part of Max Weber’s work, which is still consistent, showed that those that held the philosophy that they were to be rewarded by God used their economic success to evaluate their standing. They would exploit the poor because they surely were not going to get into heaven.

The fact that I am evolved from a common ancestor with apes only makes me more in awe of the power of nature, not a horrible monster.

You say that by removing god that we remove our attachment and caring for others, yet you have no evidence for this. All ape species show at least some from of attachment, even if they are largely weak ties, so humans should have, and there is evidence that they did, evolved stronger ties to help in survival.

Your argument is that we need to lie to children because there is nothing in nature that makes us responsible to others.

My argument, supported by the works above, is that humans have a mechanism that makes them care for one another, which make us responsible for the survival of one another.

I agree again with Dominic. You have a point in that I overstepped my bounds with regards to what ‘science’ says, but it doesn’t refute the fact that telling a kid he’s a cosmic accident, an animal evolved from monkeys, is far more detrimental to him than telling the child he/she is accountable before God to love their neighbor, put others before themselves, etc, etc… It’s as if you’re trying to avoid the actual argument by drawing my attention towards mistakes I made that, when it comes to the argument, really don’t matter (that’s not to say they don’t matter at all, just not for this argument).