Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-17-2017 9:00 AM
269 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD (5 members, 264 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,415 Year: 29,021/21,208 Month: 1,087/1,847 Week: 10/452 Day: 10/115 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
252627
28
2930Next
Author Topic:   Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 406 of 438 (743949)
12-06-2014 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by AZPaul3
12-05-2014 7:41 AM


The discipline determined quite some time ago that the only scale of evolutionary success is fitness and fitness is assessed by counting babies.

I don't think that I have said anything that contradicts that notion. Reproductive success is still the metric. I am saying that being able to make babies under a wider variety of conditions will lead to more babies. This seems very obvious to me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by AZPaul3, posted 12-05-2014 7:41 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 407 of 438 (743950)
12-06-2014 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by New Cat's Eye
12-05-2014 8:50 AM


To me, it would seem that the highly specialized species should be the one that is considered "more evolved". Not the one that has had very little pressure.

I guess that more or less evolved is not the right terminology. A good analogy might be a general education compared to a specialized education. An art history major might be able to find a good job under some economies but a polymath could find a job anywhere at any time. Doesn't the polymath enjoy a definite advantage?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-05-2014 8:50 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 408 of 438 (743951)
12-06-2014 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 404 by NoNukes
12-05-2014 10:32 AM


Being able to kill a bear with a gun that you are not capable of making does not demonstrate that you have evolved. That killing would instead be evidence of a completely different process.

I get that.

The evolved quality is the intellect that allows us to solve problems. Being able to solve problems without waiting for natural selection to do it must be on the plus side for making babies.

Having a moral code is an attempt to solve problems. Those elements of our moral codes that show themselves to work (that is to help us make more babies) are retained over time. This retention is an objective filtering by means of natural selection.

Arriving at the point where we can appreciate this fact allows us to accelerate the process by actively getting rid of those moral codes that are a hindrance to the robustness of our ability to survive as a species. A good example would be the elimination of moral ideas that promote unchecked breeding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2014 10:32 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2014 3:48 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 409 of 438 (743953)
12-06-2014 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by ringo
12-05-2014 11:35 AM


Can you elaborate? How would an individual; "get society" to conform to his needs?

Simply by being an individual like John Lennon or Andy Warhol or Richard Feynman or Jesus Christ or Genghis Kahn or anybody else that you might happen to admire. It happens all the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by ringo, posted 12-05-2014 11:35 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:11 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13987
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 410 of 438 (743964)
12-06-2014 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 409 by ProtoTypical
12-06-2014 9:16 AM


ProtoTypical writes:

ringo writes:

Can you elaborate? How would an individual; "get society" to conform to his needs?


Simply by being an individual like John Lennon or Andy Warhol or Richard Feynman or Jesus Christ or Genghis Kahn or anybody else that you might happen to admire. It happens all the time.

Sorry, still not elaborate enough. How does my admiration of John Lennon get me to conform to his needs? Being dead and all, his needs are relatively few.

And the connection to morality and/or evolution is becoming pretty tenuous too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-06-2014 9:16 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-07-2014 6:04 AM ringo has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 411 of 438 (743999)
12-07-2014 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 410 by ringo
12-06-2014 11:11 AM


You do not see how John Lennon changed the morality of the world? Or Gloria Steinman or Rachel Carson or Rosa Parks? It is not so much about conforming to their needs as it is about agreeing with their ideas. This is no tenuous connection. These are clear examples of individuals changing the morality of their society.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by ringo, posted 12-06-2014 11:11 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:38 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13987
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 412 of 438 (744022)
12-07-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 411 by ProtoTypical
12-07-2014 6:04 AM


ProtoTypical writes:

You do not see how John Lennon changed the morality of the world? Or Gloria Steinman or Rachel Carson or Rosa Parks? It is not so much about conforming to their needs as it is about agreeing with their ideas.


You seem to be contradicting yourself. I had to look back at what point you're trying to make.

In Message 399 you said:

quote:
I agree that the impetus for morality comes from the individual but I wonder if it is a willingness to conform to society. I would say that it is an attempt to get society to conform to the needs of the individual.

I don't see the changes initiated by John Lennon, et al. as having anything at all to do with their needs. Members of society recognized that their ideas were good for society and changed their individual behaviour for the good of society. They became willing to conform to a new society that was envisioned by John Lennon, et al. (Imagine). It was "of" John Lennon but not "for" John Lennon.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-07-2014 6:04 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-08-2014 5:00 PM ringo has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10126
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 413 of 438 (744034)
12-07-2014 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 408 by ProtoTypical
12-06-2014 9:01 AM


The evolved quality is the intellect that allows us to solve problems. Being able to solve problems without waiting for natural selection to do it must be on the plus side for making babies.

On the plus side yes, but if selection is not involved, then we are talking about something other than evolution.

Having a moral code is an attempt to solve problems. Those elements of our moral codes that show themselves to work (that is to help us make more babies) are retained over time. This retention is an objective filtering by means of natural selection.

I don't buy it. People who don't follow our moral code get shunned or locked up. Those kinds of penalties are not natural selection. I'm not convinced that morality is inheritable in any substantial way at all. For humans a model in which ethics and morals are learned seems to work pretty well.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by ProtoTypical, posted 12-06-2014 9:01 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 9:04 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Colbard
Member (Idle past 1008 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 414 of 438 (744098)
12-08-2014 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 413 by NoNukes
12-07-2014 3:48 PM


NoNukes writes:

For humans a model in which ethics and morals are learned seems to work pretty well.

Learned? From what?

What law is the basis for human laws if not the law of God?

Thou shalt not, disrespect parents, kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, and envy.

If you find a better one from inflatable worm world, let us know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by NoNukes, posted 12-07-2014 3:48 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by jar, posted 12-08-2014 9:14 AM Colbard has responded
 Message 418 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-08-2014 12:04 PM Colbard has not yet responded
 Message 419 by ringo, posted 12-08-2014 12:14 PM Colbard has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29808
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 415 of 438 (744102)
12-08-2014 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by Colbard
12-08-2014 9:04 AM


Read the Bible
Thou shalt not, disrespect parents, kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, and envy.

Yet Jesus disrespected his mother and appropriated group funds for his own oils.

The only basis for morality should be learned behaviors and empathy.

The God found in the Bible is often amoral at best and immoral at times needing to be chastened and corrected by a human.

Have you ever even read the Bible Colbard?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 9:04 AM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 9:34 AM jar has responded

  
Colbard
Member (Idle past 1008 days)
Posts: 300
From: Australia
Joined: 08-31-2014


Message 416 of 438 (744108)
12-08-2014 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by jar
12-08-2014 9:14 AM


Re: Read the Bible
Jar writes:

The only basis for morality should be learned behaviors and empathy.

The God found in the Bible is often amoral at best and immoral at times needing to be chastened and corrected by a human.

Have you ever even read the Bible Colbard?

I don't need to, because nearly everyone here can already tell me what I know and don't know, I'm not sure at which Uni they studied, but I feel honored at best.

Sounds like you have been coached by men of the apron.

Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by jar, posted 12-08-2014 9:14 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by jar, posted 12-08-2014 9:50 AM Colbard has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29808
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 417 of 438 (744113)
12-08-2014 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 416 by Colbard
12-08-2014 9:34 AM


Re: Read the Bible
I don't think anyone has even a clue what you know but what you don't know is pretty obvious.

You don't know anything about the Bible or Christianity or Science or Honesty or Morality or evidence or debate or discussion for starters.

If you did then you would know that the Bible says mankind has the same capability to know right and wrong as God does thanks to the great gift given in Genesis 2&3 fable.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 9:34 AM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 9:12 AM jar has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 418 of 438 (744132)
12-08-2014 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by Colbard
12-08-2014 9:04 AM


What law is the basis for human laws if not the law of God?

Er ... humans? That would kind of explain why you call them human laws.

I mean, for example, you ask first of all where the law against disrespecting our parents comes from. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it comes from our parents. Indeed, we have no secular law enforcing it.

Thou shalt not kill? Well, that's 'cos we all of us don't want to be killed.

And so on.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 9:04 AM Colbard has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13987
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 419 of 438 (744133)
12-08-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by Colbard
12-08-2014 9:04 AM


Colbard writes:

Learned? From what?


Experience. The human race is self-educated in terms of morality. If morality was "imparted" by some omniscient, omnipotent, omnivorous alien overlord, it ought to work better than it does.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by Colbard, posted 12-08-2014 9:04 AM Colbard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 428 by Colbard, posted 12-11-2014 9:15 AM ringo has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1761
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 420 of 438 (744185)
12-08-2014 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by ringo
12-07-2014 1:38 PM


I had to look back at what point you're trying to make.

Me too There are a couple.

Our moral behaviour is born out of the eons long evolutionary process that selected those behaviours that helped us to survive as a species. I am saying that these selections can be viewed as objectively good.

I was also making the point that some species are more likely to survive by virtue of their ability to survive across a range of environments and that this should put them higher up on a scale of fitness. That is to say that they are more robust. Being able to adapt increases our range. Morality is one of the tools that we use to adapt our behaviour to match the environment.

A third point was that the individual is the discreet source of morality and that some individuals act as a lightning rod or lens for individual beliefs that reach a threshold.

So, armed with an objectively established goal, as individuals we can promote a rational morality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by ringo, posted 12-07-2014 1:38 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by RAZD, posted 12-08-2014 5:17 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 423 by ringo, posted 12-09-2014 10:50 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
252627
28
2930Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017