Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature
Debate Rounds (4)
I would like to keep the debate within the following spectrum: That is, morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The topic of life's Unalienable Rights have been debated recently, and I encourage Con should review this debate for background. http://www.debate.org...
Ideally Con is familiar with the following two references, but it is not a prerequisite:
Pro would like to keep the debate in the realm of physical science as oppose to metaphysical speculation.
Round 1 is for Acceptance
Round 2 is for Arguments
Round 3 is for Rebuttal
Round 4 is for Closing Statements
Good luck to my opponent.
Creedhunt (Con), thanks for your interest and may we both enjoy a learning experience from a constructive debate.
First, about your point on metaphysics. Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy. During the Enlightenment era, the scientific method transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment becoming separate from the rest of philosophy. Therefore, I take the position during this debate that metaphysics denotes philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character, where my focus throughout this debate, is on the empirical.
The scientific method is about studying repeatable patterns in nature and trying to understand our place in the universe, while using those patterns to advance our standard of living. When we understand a pattern to some degree, we classify it as a Law in Nature. We also came to learn that life is a product of the Laws of Nature and everything is confined within the matrix of these Laws.
To begin our consideration of morality as a force, we will use the property of Symmetries starting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. To simplify this Law in reference to flow, there is a persistent tendency in the direction of flow. For example, water flowing from the height of a mountain down to sea level. Flow having the tendency to move from high resistance to low resistance, from high pressure to lower pressure, from a high temperature to lower temperature, and so on.
On the human level we find similar patterns in general, however, not exclusively. That is, the desire to take the path of least resistance or less work for the same result. Human migration from the high resistance of tyranny, to the low resistance found in freedom. To go with the flow within a social group, rather than facing the high pressure struggles going against the flow. Moving from the high pressure of emotional stress, desiring a lower stress level. From pain to comfort, and so on.
Let’s study the traceability path from Thermodynamics to life to morality:
Recently Bejan discovered the Constructal Law which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Constructal Law states:
“Given freedom, for a finite-sized flow system to persist in time (to live), its configuration must evolve in such a way that provides easier access to the currents that flow through it.”
In general, the Constructal Law explains how everything that moves, whether animate or inanimate, naturally evolve in ways that facilitates such movement. According to Takac, movement for all “Live” includes freedom (“Liberty”) that facilitates “the pursuit of” positive-feedback (aka survival, chemical/electrical, etc., including “Happiness” for us humans); hence, our Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Thomas Jefferson).
We took a big step between Thermodynamics to our Unalienable Rights. For background see the following:
The subtle nonverbal communication between a parent and infant is miraculous, and it flows through life’s Unalienable Rights in harmonious inter-species symmetry. This symmetry is apparent when we hear the cries from the screeching chirps within a nest, to the whimpering pups in a den, to the cries of a human infant along with the feelings those sounds evoke; the sounds throughout the tree of life. In many species, a newborn cries instinctively, elevating its cry to a scream when something is wrong—such as hunger triggered by the genetically programmed need to pursue food. Among humans, the parent is instinctively annoyed or alarmed by this cry and, in distress, tries to seek mutual Happiness by catering to the infant’s desires. In contrast, there is something quite pleasant about the sight of a smiling infant, as it naturally invites the sharing of Happiness. The behavioral difference between a smile and a cry are the tenets of right and wrong, the primitives of Morality.
The smiles and cries do not end with infancy; they persist through the cycle of life, from cradle to grave. The perception of doing something right, manifesting in Happiness between parent and child, naturally extends to the scope of the family, our neighbors, and throughout society, with the desire to bring about Happiness, promoting cooperation and social unity. Morality is a bias, a drive, and a desire to promote positive feedback that embraces Happiness and preserves an atmosphere of goodwill.
When two or more humans form a group, the group becomes alive as a separate entity with its own Unalienable Rights. The pursuit of group Happiness through goodwill and kindness leads to a mutual moral respect for the Unalienable Rights of all the members within the group. Goodwill is a conservative force that promotes order, stability, and harmony through the pursuit of group-wide positive feedback. Over time, group-wide positive feedback is the genesis of traditions, values, beliefs, language, etc., the norms of society. These norms are tried and tested, and conservatively pass down from one generation to the next establishing its culture. A moral order guides an individual in the prudent exercise of judgment relative to those norms. The individual in a civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous; that is, restrained, ethical, and honorable, respecting and embracing the Unalienable Rights of others relative to those tested norms.
The evidence of morality in a wide range of independently developed cultures across isolated human tribes empirically supports the hypothesis that morality is a universal gravitational force throughout the nature of life. This force is responsible for the diversity of traditions, values, and languages that formed the independent civil societies found throughout the world today and throughout recorded history.
Independent groups have developed among many species on the tree of life. These include schools of fish, flocks of birds, packs of wolves, tribes of humans, and even inter-species relationships, such as those between humans and their pets. In each of these groups, the group members unite around some type of shared positive feedback. Thus, positive feedback promotes unity, order, and harmony among the group members, whether genetically or socially.
The Constructal Law, “reveals that the movement towards harmony, toward flowing together and in balance, is the central tendency of design in nature.” The concept of wrong involves going against the flow and feeling the constraint of high resistance, which results in high emotional pressure and negative feedback. In contrast, the concept of right involves going with the flow and feeling the freedom of low resistance, which results in low emotional pressure and positive feedback. There is a natural tendency throughout nature to move from high to low resistance, from high pressure to a lower pressure, and from wrong to right. Within human interactions, this tendency manifests itself as morality, and it leads to social harmony by causing people to flow together. This flow falls within the shadow of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
The empirical evidence, of a repeating pattern of flow, from inanimate to animate to social flow, enhances the concept of morality being a gravitational force in nature common throughout life embracing positive-feedback resulting in living-system attraction.
I'm afraid that given my residential situation and the upcoming finals, I will be unable to continue with this debate. I ask that the remaining rounds be forfeited, and we can debate this topic another time. I can challenge Pro when I have more life to spare, or conversely (if it works out better) Pro can challenge me. I understand this is tactless, however please acknowledge that I have a few priorities.
Sorry once again, I look forward to debating this in the near future.
Perhaps, one day academia will teach morality as a force being part of the physical Laws in Nature. When that day comes, a manifestation of a higher level of moral character will migrate through civil societies. And on that day, from this debate, you will have a head start on your finals.
I look forward in meeting you on the debating floor in the future.
I'm new to debate.org and not sure how to gracefully terminate a debate. Maybe, the timeout will end this debate.
creedhunt forfeited this round.
creedhunt forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ChosenWolff 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF all rounds
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.