Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Religion Give Birth to Morals?
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 31 of 68 (383375)
02-07-2007 8:02 PM


Has this topic been done to death in the all singing all dancing "Morals without God or Darwin, just Empathy" Thread in "Social Issues and Creation/Evolution"?

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 32 of 68 (383406)
02-07-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 10:52 PM


Open Mind
Is it possible for a moral to exist outside of religion?
Of course morals can exist outside of religion just as well as immoral behaviour can exist within religion.
No animals are moral. They find nothing wrong with killing for food. They would kill another animal over its mate.
Animal morality would mean what exactly? Empathy? sacrifice? nurturing? play?
That they would kill another over their mate or food makes them different from humans in what way?
Why would humans act with morals from a purely evolutionary perspective?
Let us examine this. If a member of a society kills another fear becomes rampant throughout the community.As a defensive response the person doing the killing is himself dealt with in order that the health of the community could return to the peaceful norm. Revenge could be included if the close family members were to take matters into their own hand. However in those cases where a person is wrongly dealt with for reasons that are numerous then as a defensive maneuver {again} the members of the society may then impose requirements that assure the right person is dealt with. {since it does no good to deal with the wrong person as the original problem remains} .
Since a society requires a certain amount of order in which the collective good can be assured then the evolutionary reasons should be obvious.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 10:52 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 33 of 68 (383420)
02-08-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 10:52 PM


Dear Open Mind,
This topic has indeed been done to death. I want to offer you my encouragement in your views. Folks will tell you that the issue is closed, that it has been proven that morality is not from God, but from evolution.
Morality at its most basic level is a BELIEF that what you choose to do will be for the benefit of you, of your neighbor, of your society, or of your soul. Whether we evolved the ability to behave morally, or whether God is behind evolution, it is still a BELIEF.
It does not matter if there is a natural purpose to morality, or something more important than survival of the body. What matters is that we as human beings have a choice, and we will always for all time make decisions based on what we BELIEVE is right. Animals are irrelevent, as no one can prove that they have choice.
The opinions of people who claim to have a religion which has no more usefulness than the color of the shirt they put on today, should not perturb you. I will give you a link which talks about the difference in a philosophic morality and an evolved one. The burden of proof is very much on the evolutionist who needs to discover a useful explanation for a morality which is undeniable. They say you can reconcile evolution and belief, which I am beginning to doubt, but at any rate in this link you can clearly see the bias of the author, the competition between science and philosophy, and how it was so important for people to find an explanation for morality that could exclude all religious ideas.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/mccabe02.htm#I
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 10:52 PM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Larni, posted 02-08-2007 11:53 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 11:59 AM anastasia has replied
 Message 36 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-08-2007 2:29 PM anastasia has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 34 of 68 (383465)
02-08-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by anastasia
02-08-2007 12:55 AM


Ana writes:
The burden of proof is very much on the evolutionist who needs to discover a useful explanation for a morality which is undeniable.
No it is not.
We gave it to you (evidence)any way, several times, and you rejected it as 'unfullfilling'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 12:55 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 2:52 PM Larni has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 68 (383466)
02-08-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by anastasia
02-08-2007 12:55 AM


They say you can reconcile evolution and belief, which I am beginning to doubt, but at any rate in this link you can clearly see the bias of the author, the competition between science and philosophy, and how it was so important for people to find an explanation for morality that could exclude all religious ideas.
I don't see that in your link, which you fail to note is a from a publication from 1926 - long before the majority of the current research on emerging moral/ethical systems.
I wonder, perhaps, if you could reply to the arguments I offered in message 5. In particular, how can you doubt that morality emerges out of practical necessity in the face of the reiterative Prisoner's Dilemma?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 12:55 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 4:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 36 of 68 (383538)
02-08-2007 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by anastasia
02-08-2007 12:55 AM


decisions, decisions
I agree, anastasia, that the 'morality' topic has been done to death. Not by me, though. Morality is one of those subjects that makes my eyes glaze over, like 'predestination.' And for the same reason. I don't buy the premise.
Here the premise seems to be that a special category of decisions exists, called 'moral decisions', separate and distinct from all other kinds of decisions. We are asked to regard 'morals' as so anamolous a thing compared to all other phenomena in the natural world that we have to find a special explanation for it.
I submit that nothing special is involved. It's all about making choices. We are discussing decisions.
When we decide anything we ask 'Which outcome is likely to best?' We assess that according to our priorities. With these in hand we ask 'Best how? Best for whom? Best compared to what other choices?'
The process is the same whether we are deciding to put the pencils in the left or right drawer or to try to beat the yellow light or to strangle the boss. We decide each one by asking the same questions.
Now a religious person might say 'Oh, but moral questions are different. Those are the questions where I have to consider what God wants. I have no reason to think God cares which drawer gets the pencils. I have every reason to think God cares if the boss gets strangled.'
If putting God in the picture makes some decisions 'moral' by definition, okay. But in that case the definition does not entail a separate category, distinct in kind, at all. 'Moral' decisions' are just a subset of the category 'decisions.' We're back where we were before.
In the case of the pencils we decide 'Best for whom?' We consider whether we are right-handed or left-handed, whether other people using the desk are right-handed or left-handed, whose work is most affected, and so on. In the case of 'moral' decisions we do the same thing. Religious persons just include God among those persons they have to consider. When they ask 'Best for whom?' they consider what is best for the deity--or, at least, what is best for them given the placement of a deity in the picture.
So here's how I take these two points:
anastasia:
Whether we evolved the ability to behave morally, or whether God is behind evolution, it is still a BELIEF.
Belief would seem to be the essential ingredient in any decision, yes. But the same belief compels any decision, 'moral' or not. The belief: Of my available choices, this one seems best. Everything else is just a factor that gets you there.
The burden of proof is very much on the evolutionist who needs to discover a useful explanation for a morality which is undeniable.
I don't see a burden of proof on anybody when it comes to 'morality.' One only has to explain decision-making. Do that, and 'moral decisions'--a subset of the set 'decisions'--falls right in.
Animals are irrelevent, as no one can prove that they have choice.
Animals make choices all the time. Whether or not to flee a perceived threat (and in which direction?), whether to pursue or break off a confrontation with a rival, whether to mate with this suitor or that suitor, and so on. The stakes in these decisions couldn't be higher for the creatures making them--as anyone who has watched an indecisive squirrel darting back and forth on the highway can attest.
Animals may not 'reason' these decisions out (verbal or syllogistic thinking) but without a doubt they are definitely presented with choices. They choose from the range of choices they perceive. They make decisions. Sometimes we see unanimity and sometimes we see individuals making different choices.
Does 'belief' enter the picture for an animal? Sure. A rabbit who runs from a loud noise believes the noise presents sufficient evidence of a potential threat. No, it's not the kind of belief you write up and put in a Credo. But it doesn't have to be. All it has to do is compel a course of action. In that action we see an honest manifestation of the creature's belief.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : dissatisfaction with a few earlier choices.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 12:55 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 4:37 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 37 of 68 (383547)
02-08-2007 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Larni
02-08-2007 11:53 AM


Larni writes:
No it is not.
Sorry, maybe it would have been more to your liking if I had said 'was' on the evolutionists, instead of 'is'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Larni, posted 02-08-2007 11:53 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Larni, posted 02-09-2007 5:43 AM anastasia has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 38 of 68 (383583)
02-08-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 11:59 AM


Crashfrog writes:
I don't see that in your link, which you fail to note is a from a publication from 1926 - long before the majority of the current research on emerging moral/ethical systems.
I didn't mention it, no, I gave the whole link. It is still a useful link for an over-view of some of the major schools of thought on moral origins.
I wonder, perhaps, if you could reply to the arguments I offered in message 5. In particular, how can you doubt that morality emerges out of practical necessity in the face of the reiterative Prisoner's Dilemma?
I am entirely and extremely sure that for animals who have been given choice, having some form of moral system would be necessary and vital. With the Prisoner's Dilemma, there is only the issue that in religion, there often is no 'dilemma'. Let me speculate that a player must play solitaire; his altruistic behaviour gains him 'victory' every time, (unless its a selfish bluff ) His cooperation with another player gains him victory even if the other player 'defects'.
If there is a game, there must be an object. Mutual strategic cooperation requires mutual goal. It is evident that a religion which promotes altruism would seek to spread its ideas as motivations. However, the ideals can spread while the motive shifts from true physical necessity of cooperation, to a more spiritual 'love thy neighbor' which is based not on survival, but on the belief in God-given equality and mutual benefit of 'souls'. I think now, there is a sort of reverse process; an ackowledgement of man's equality whether God is 'in' us or not (although it is interesting to pinpoint what that equality is based on), and then, we have this information that morality is a subconscious selection for survival and entirely similar to that of our ancestors long ago before religion came about.
I have no big problem with this explanation. It is not a matter of doubting facts or evidence, making morality natural, etc. There is mainly a difference in the goals of religious people and non, although cooperation is still often the best strategy. Non-religious people seem to be leaning toward a survival of the species answer for their 'goal' in morality. Religious people have a survival of the soul 'goal'. It is basically a game that you can win using only altruism while survival tactics in real life are very contingent on the actions of the opponent. For example, opponent attacks in battle, you must choose between defence, which could help the species, or allowing yourself to be destroyed, which would again possibly help the species, if your tribe is weaker. In real life, also, extreme pacifists like the Quakers, faired poorly in defense situations, and could not have survived without stronger 'protectors' in society. So, survival of a species does not seem to be particularly useful as a goal when the individual is forced to choose between himself and someone else. Altruism does not truly equal survival, unless the other side is cooperating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 11:59 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 4:54 PM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 39 of 68 (383597)
02-08-2007 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Archer Opteryx
02-08-2007 2:29 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
Archer Opterix writes:
Belief would seem to be the essential ingredient in any decision, yes. But the same belief compels any decision, 'moral' or not. The belief: Of my available choices, this one seems best. Everything else is just a factor that gets you there.
Yes, but 'best' depends on what your goal is. If your goal is ambitious, the best decision may not be the most moral one, but you could actually reach your goal by making the most moral decision for selfish reasons. You may achieve fame for your philanthropy or integrity, for example.
The issues in the morality threads seem to revolve more around motives, i.e., who are you looking to serve in your morality ? The two main options are; serve yourself or your species by serving your fellow neighbor, or; serve yourself and God, by serving your fellow neighbor. I would say the 'God' part is useful for getting people to concentrate on serving others without expectation of reciprocation. People are a bit resistant to serving other people when they are not being met with equal treatment. My big thing is that survival by cooperation only works if there actually is cooperation...so there are of course many plots to unite mankind in purpose, like we discussed in the NWO thread.
I do not think squirrels are indecisive btw, but using a tactic of confusing their pursuants like skunks and many other little guys do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-08-2007 2:29 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-08-2007 5:11 PM anastasia has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 68 (383610)
02-08-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by anastasia
02-08-2007 4:04 PM


Let me speculate that a player must play solitaire
Er, I guess I don't know what you mean. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, of course, you don't know what your partner is going to choose; but to say that it's a solitary game is very inaccurate.
I'm not sure what the rest of your post actually means. I don't sense that you're motivated to produce clear writing.
Altruism does not truly equal survival, unless the other side is cooperating.
This is inaccurate on many levels. Self-sacrifice can equal survival, because it's known that your relatives carry many of your genes. Thus, to give one's life for two brothers is survival-positive: statistically, between the two of them, they carry all of your genes. So there's no loss.
Moreover - morality, ethics, and laws are the formalized cultural structures we use to make sure that the other side is cooperating.
The beauty of the evolutionary explanation is that, not only does it explain where morals come from, but it explains why people so often act outside of their morals. These are two problems that religion has never been able to successfully grapple with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 4:04 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 10:25 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 41 of 68 (383614)
02-08-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by anastasia
02-08-2007 4:37 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
anastasia:
The issues in the morality threads seem to revolve more around motives, i.e., who are you looking to serve in your morality ? The two main options are; serve yourself or your species by serving your fellow neighbor, or; serve yourself and God, by serving your fellow neighbor. I would say the 'God' part is useful for getting people to concentrate on serving others without expectation of reciprocation. People are a bit resistant to serving other people when they are not being met with equal treatment.
I agree that our species generally places a higher value to altruism than on self-interest, however enlightened.
But does belief in God encourage altruism? If religious people behave in an altruistic way in order to gain heaven or avoid hell, reciprocity remains very much part of the contract. These people just look to God to provide the reciprocity rather than their fellow human beings.
The religious people who have the 'moral edge' by this standard are those who behave altruistically even though their beliefs do not include eventual punishments and paradises. Their conduct is more selfless than that of religious people who expect some reward. By that standard the palm for morality would go to most Jews over most Christians.
But that just raises the question of why this is limited just to religious persons. If behaving altruistically with no expectation of reward shows superior moral character, altruistic atheists would also take the palm before their Christian counterparts.
I do not think squirrels are indecisive btw, but using a tactic of confusing their pursuants like skunks and many other little guys do.
So that's why they do that. Of course--a scramble would be their best defense against a diving bird of prey. I wondered.
That tactic is really not working for them on the highway.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 4:37 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 10:54 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 42 of 68 (383722)
02-08-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 4:54 PM


Crashfrog writes:
Er, I guess I don't know what you mean. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, of course, you don't know what your partner is going to choose; but to say that it's a solitary game is very inaccurate.
No, in religion based morality, the PD would be a solitary game. If I understand the game properly, the premise is that both players, if they choose to cooperate, achieve success at a higher ratio than if one chooses to defect. If there is a defector, a 'tit for tat' strategy may work better.
In religion, a cooperation WILL work, but success is possible for one player regardless of how the other plays.
Simply, I do good to you, you screw me, I still win. Instead of 'tit for tat' there is a 'turn the other cheek'. It is a win-win. It is of course based on the idea that you don't know how the other player is going to play. Our salvation should not be contingent on someone else's actions.
And yes, you don't know what the other player will choose, but the success of this game in proving a point is in the studies with 'fixed', pre-planned strategies, and the results which were found.
I'm not sure what the rest of your post actually means. I don't sense that you're motivated to produce clear writing.
Sorry if I am thinking too fast. I think that it might be hard to follow when this dilemma is applied to relgion. I will try to be better in future.
This is inaccurate on many levels. Self-sacrifice can equal survival, because it's known that your relatives carry many of your genes. Thus, to give one's life for two brothers is survival-positive: statistically, between the two of them, they carry all of your genes. So there's no loss.
Yes, but in other ways altruism will not equal survival without cooperation.
If the continuation of the species came down to one man and one woman, respect for the woman would have to come secondary if she did not cooperate willingly with sex. I am quite sure in this scenerio, that many people would violate the code of survival in order to uphold a moral code. In religion, they still 'win'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 4:54 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 10:40 PM anastasia has replied
 Message 46 by kuresu, posted 02-08-2007 11:41 PM anastasia has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 68 (383725)
02-08-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by anastasia
02-08-2007 10:25 PM


Simply, I do good to you, you screw me, I still win.
Well, no, you lose. You're simply making up a non-existent reward to change the comparison. You may propose that you go to heaven, or whatever, but you don't. Just like for everybody else there's no such thing.
You don't get to dismiss the outcome of the game and substitute feel-good make-believe. That's disingenuous.
Honestly I don't see how anything you've written here constitutes a reply. At best you're simply using sophistry to cloud the issue.
I think that it might be hard to follow when this dilemma is applied to relgion.
Well, indeed, the issue does become a lot less clear when you introduce made-up conditions and non-existent rewards. I suspect that obfuscation is a deliberate strategy on your part.
If the continuation of the species came down to one man and one woman,
If it did, it won't. Continue, I mean. That kind of bottleneck is unrecoverable. There's no way a species continues for any length of time from only two individuals.
respect for the woman would have to come secondary if she did not cooperate willingly with sex. I am quite sure in this scenerio, that many people would violate the code of survival in order to uphold a moral code. In religion, they still 'win'.
I don't know what you mean by "respect", unless by "respect" you mean "not raping a woman"; in either case I'm dismayed that you so quickly leapt to a completely off-topic justification for a brutal crime. Indeed I don't know what kind of moral calculus you're operating under where a doomed, futile effort to "save the species" constitutes a justification for raping an innocent woman, and I'm shocked and disgusted that you would call that a "win" for her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 10:25 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by anastasia, posted 02-08-2007 11:11 PM crashfrog has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 44 of 68 (383728)
02-08-2007 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Archer Opteryx
02-08-2007 5:11 PM


Re: decisions, decisions
Archer Opterix writes:
I agree that our species generally places a higher value to altruism than on self-interest, however enlightened.
Yes, and it was primarily the great philosophies which established this, before science, as you will see from the similarities between Eastern and Western thought regarding 'love of neighbor'. This is why I specifically do not discredit Eastern philosophies, because this enlightenment was possible through use of human reason alone. Jesus was perhaps a guide and a standard in times of doubt or of loss of reason. I think we are going thru a time now where the ideas of Jesus and the great philosophers are being challenged, and the same result of 'altrusim' is being found scientifically.
The religious people who have the 'moral edge' by this standard are those who behave altruistically even though their beliefs do not include eventual punishments and paradises. Their conduct is more selfless than that of religious people who expect some reward. By that standard the palm for morality would go to most Jews over most Christians.
I agree, Archer, that this would be the case. In religious terms, it is provided for. Think about the parable of the sheep and the goats; Lord, when did I do this for you? Whenever you did it for the least of my brothers, you did it for me. This implies that altruism, based on a belief of its value, is a very good thing even when the motivation is not 'god'. BUT, it can not be based on hypocrisy, as in loving others to gain reward for yourself...it is clear that people can 'bluff' love of men, to gain prestige.
So that's why they do that. Of course--a scramble would be their best defense against a diving bird of prey. I wondered.
That tactic is really not working for them on the highway.
Very funny to me, that sometimes the more people look for things in nature, the more they over-look the obvious. If you walk up to a skunk, there is an immediate tactic of confusion, which culmunates in 'spraying' if it is not successful. Many animals which do not have enough intelligence to change survival tactics with new threats, are easy victims. I think squirrels are a tiny bit different in that they will always try to climb a tree, and if they don't find one in one direction they will turn in the other. The point is, we DO have the intelligence to adapt out survival skills to varying situations. I find a morality based on survival unfulfilling because it is primitive in a sense. We are very readily altruistic when there is mutual gain, as in a business deal. Most cooperative behaviours, such as learning a new language, developing the Euro, etc. are not viewed as moral or immoral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-08-2007 5:11 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-09-2007 12:35 AM anastasia has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 45 of 68 (383735)
02-08-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
02-08-2007 10:40 PM


Crashfrog writes:
Well, no, you lose. You're simply making up a non-existent reward to change the comparison. You may propose that you go to heaven, or whatever, but you don't. Just like for everybody else there's no such thing.
But that is the point, Crash. Again, in religion, you win. It is not a question about whether YOU believe in religion, but of what religions teach. Without a religion, the motives for altruism are much harder to pinpoint on an individual level.
You don't get to dismiss the outcome of the game and substitute feel-good make-believe. That's disingenuous.
But you DO, you get to turn the other cheek even if the outcome is negative.
Honestly I don't see how anything you've written here constitutes a reply. At best you're simply using sophistry to cloud the issue.
There are SO MANY issues.
Well, indeed, the issue does become a lot less clear when you introduce made-up conditions and non-existent rewards. I suspect that obfuscation is a deliberate strategy on your part.
Indeed, it does. The issue is not whether you can accept science, but whether you can accept science alone. Our minds are capable of so much more.
If it did, it won't. Continue, I mean. That kind of bottleneck is unrecoverable. There's no way a species continues for any length of time from only two individuals.
I understand, but the point is that morality is not the same as a chance at survival.
I don't know what you mean by "respect", unless by "respect" you mean "not raping a woman"; in either case I'm dismayed that you so quickly leapt to a completely off-topic justification for a brutal crime. Indeed I don't know what kind of moral calculus you're operating under where a doomed, futile effort to "save the species" constitutes a justification for raping an innocent woman, and I'm shocked and disgusted that you would call that a "win" for her.
That is so the whole point! There is no justification for immoral behaviour even if it means survival. Altruism would have to win in the face of even a chance at it. There is nothing about raping a woman which is a 'win', I actually said the opposite. Not raping her would be a 'win' in morality, but a positive loss in survival.
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 02-08-2007 10:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 02-09-2007 11:21 AM anastasia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024