|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
The process of evolution is amoral. Many evolved organisms, including humans, are not. Because they evolved morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
One is more impactful to being a moral person to me, the other is simply "following orders" ..
I think that we should strive to use our conscious mind as much as possible when dealing with moral decisions. As that is the entire idea of morality: what do we want to do when interacting with others? I understand that some level of instinct is going to be included and may even be unavoidable. I don't have an issue with that, I just think that morality should be about trying set a goal that is the "most moral" and then trying to setup a system that's best for achieving that goal. The particulars after that (game theory, evolution, this idea, that idea...) are not as foundational (to me) I'm actually leaning towards the "following orders" side as being more foundational. Analogy time! Let's say we have two different people confronted with the same moral dilemma. I dunno, they stumble across an injured woman laying on the side of the road. Person 1's immediate thoughts/instinct is to make sure the woman is okay and to help in any way they can. Person 2's immediate thoughts/instinct is to capitalize on the situation and take her purse from her and steal her money. Then they both think about it for a bit, and they both decide that they should help her. Wouldn't you say that Person 1 is a more moral person than Person 2? I mean, they both ended up with the same moral act, but the first person is more moral at heart. I agree that we should use our intellect to form moral decisions, but we all also have that inner voice, or instinct, that drives our initial reactions to situations. And I think that inner voice is the more foundational part of your morality, and that the intellectual assessment of that actually overrides our instinct and allows us to do something else. So the intellectual part, to me, seems to be more ancillary than foundational, and the "following orders" is actually the foundational part. Thoughts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Aren't the initial thoughts of both 1 and 2 products of acculturation and not instinct? Maybe you define instinct different than I. An acculturated instinct? Is there such a thing as an "instinct" based on nurture rather than nature?
Maybe this has already been covered here and I've just been too lazy to read up-thread. Feel free to slap me around.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Aren't the initial thoughts of both 1 and 2 products of acculturation and not instinct? Maybe you define instinct different than I. An acculturated instinct? Is there such a thing as an "instinct" based on nurture rather than nature? Maybe this has already been covered here and I've just been too lazy to read up-thread. Feel free to slap me around. I'm under the impression that Mod is talking about the evolutionary, or more "instinctual" aka 'following orders', side of things; what with all the "game theory" analysis n' stuff... and Stile is talking more the learned, or more "acculturation" aka 'conscious mind', side of things. They were talking past each other, and came to an understanding, and I just thought that Stile's consideration of the "acculturation" part as being the more foundational one was misappropriated against the "instinctual" side, which I consider to be more foundational. Whether or not that's due to more social, as opposed to genetic, differences I honestly do not know, so I'm open to evidence. But they really do get kinda blended in this situation, so, its prolly hard to tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
NoNukes writes: This is idiotic. Evolution is not planned by humans. Accordingly evolution does not represent or contradict morality. The triceratops are all gone. But nobody human caused that. That's what I said Evolution is amoral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Colbard writes:
Evolution has no right and wrong, good or bad, it just is whatever it is. Tangle writes: Correct. But so what? Somebody just talked about gravity etc, which are claimed to be amoral/physical laws.Morality has a law, which has a law giver, that's why Darwin is turning in his grave. And to be strict, if you are an evolutionist only the second part of your response is acceptable, because there is no "correct" or "incorrect" in evolution, it just is what it is and nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Larni writes: It's a sobering thought, isn't it? "Sobering" is a moral term and cannot be applied scientifically in evolution. You can say "fearful," or anything an animal reacts with. Evolutionary creatures don't have "sobering" moments, they have strategies, reasoning, tactics, cunning, memory, instinct, etc. Humans are just advanced animals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
JonF writes: The process of evolution is amoral. Many evolved organisms, including humans, are not. Because they evolved morality. There is no 'scientific' proof of morality or of any moral laws or associated law giver such as God.There is no such thing as morality in evolution, although there are accepted strategies of behavior for the survival of the species, which some term morality. Evolution must remain amoral, otherwise it is not alone in the game.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Catsci writes: Let's say we have two different people confronted with the same moral dilemma. I dunno, they stumble across an injured woman laying on the side of the road.Person 1's immediate thoughts/instinct is to make sure the woman is okay and to help in any way they can. Person 2's immediate thoughts/instinct is to capitalize on the situation and take her purse from her and steal her money. Then they both think about it for a bit, and they both decide that they should help her. Wouldn't you say that Person 1 is a more moral person than Person 2? According to evolution neither are moral or immoral, and are both playing a role in the eventual survival of a fitter species. nice feelings are just hormonal responses which in the long run help the species or ruin it, depending on chance and circumstances alone.Both are acting on inbred or accumulated behaviors, and neither can be held accountable for their actions, it is totally natural. Edited by Colbard, : add
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
That's what I said Evolution is amoral.
Yup. People aren't. And many other species too. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Colbard writes: Somebody just talked about gravity etc, which are claimed to be amoral/physical laws. Yes, that's correct.
Morality has a law, which has a law giver, that's why Darwin is turning in his grave. That doesn't make sense as a sentence so I can only guess at what it means, but it's likely to be the usual confusion between a biological process and a religious dogma. Evolution like all discoveries of the natural world has no moral content - it's simply an observation of what happens. You think god makes morals, you're wrong, man makes its own moral codes which change over time, but that has absolutely nothing to do with evolution and I have no idea why you think Darwin would be bothered by that.
And to be strict, if you are an evolutionist only the second part of your response is acceptable, because there is no "correct" or "incorrect" in evolution, it just is what it is and nothing more. yes, we both agree that evolution has no morality but I asked you why that mattered and I'm so far no clearer why you think it does.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: yes, we both agree that evolution has no morality but I asked you why that mattered and I'm so far no clearer why you think it does. Evolution by its nature does not have any morals, so morals can never belong to any of its results such as human beings, which you say are responsible for morals.If there are no morals then a human being could not be responsible for creating something that does not exist in the process of their existence. Morals say that there is right and wrong. If people say that, then that is evidence of something which evolution does not have and neither claims to have. A thorn for the sad and unwashed mummy's boy - Charles Darwin. If humans claim that there is "right and wrong," then they are either deluded or evolution is wrong, because morals are spiritual in value, which point to spiritual authority, for which science and evolution do not account for. If there is no spiritual authority on morals, then human beings are their own authority on morals, which means that it is just a notion of human beings, as part of a process in evolution, and a future which may dispense with those notions called morals by human beings, once again confirming the lack of base for any permanent morality. Any morality which is not everlasting, permanent and unchangeable cannot be a moral, but only an instruction or order of the time. For a moral to exist, it has to be able to stand alone for ever, and also to have been there from eternity, otherwise it is only a temporary changeable notion, a circumstantial event, which is what evolution is. A true moral cannot change due to circumstance either. True morality points to an everlasting law giver of morals. If not, and morals are just human, then these will change with each passing generation, and so can never be right or wrong in the true and absolute sense. If there are no absolute truths, then the morals of humans will be circumstantial and individually variant. So for some people, it will be OK to burn your child to a molten image, and to others not. The evidence of absolute morals comes from their functionality with life, and there are no greater laws than the ten given to Moses of Divine origin. These laws provide the safety framework for every descent country. Hence we don't have Christians fleeing to go to Atheist Russia or China, or Islamic countries, but it's the other way around. Oppressed people seek freedom. For a long time - 1200 odd years, we had many intelligent people fleeing the Papacy, because it was breaking the moral laws of God in every way while claiming to uphold them. The long saga between good and evil has been going on for thousands of years, and is proof of a moral battle. History proves it. However, if this is just the saga of invented religions, then in essence we cannot argue about the issues of good and evil, and morals, which do not exist by nature or the evidence provided in the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
So all you want to do is preach and attack Catholics? Please go some place mor appropriate for that. This is in a science forum. In other words not a proper venue for preaching.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3412 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Theodoric writes: So all you want to do is preach and attack Catholics? Please go some place mor appropriate for that. This is in a science forum. In other words not a proper venue for preaching. The topic of the thread calls into question the issue of morals, which is not a subject of evolution, but of religion.You don't have to explain to the world what is threatening you, because no one is attacking you...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
No it I not a religious subject. People without religion have morals. Morals evolved in human beings. Moral values continue to evolve.
You speak as I evolution is some sort of thing. It is change over time. Can you show that morals have not evolved. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024