Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

I don't think that's true. I'd say the ultimate source of morality is the individual. As St. Paul said in Romans 2:14, the Gentiles instictively obey "God's law" because of their consciences. When living in a society there is an additional social layer, the "collective conscience".Individuals and groups project their own morality on gods in an attempt to give some authority to it.

Religion doesn't explain the human condition, and never did. They can give excuses, but we don't have to buy them.Well, that was easy.

It makes no difference. No religion "explains the human condition" more so than science does. Giving gods the credit for everything good and blaming humans for everything bad is not an explanation. "God moves in mysterious ways" is not an explamation. If anything, trusting God is incompatible with explanation.

There's also a wide variety of thought on what constitutes a "benefit". Many people seem to agree that life would "benefit" from a lower population - but few people agree on how to remove the surplus.Edited by ringo, : Spellin.

Why not? How can we know something "is" if there's no what of testing for it? And yet we're continually trying to thwart that goal. (I presume you mean the goal of survival.) We're forever doing silly, counter-productive things like climbing mountains and building dangerous airplanes just so we can jump out of them. Some people seem to derive a "benefit" from trying to throw the benefit away.Is there an evolutionary advantage to risking our lives for "fun"?

But who's more likely to get laid? The guy who climbs Mount Everest or the guy with a big roll of cash? I would suggest that the "best course of action" would be to stay home, play it safe and make a lot of money to show your ability to take care of the children. That makes some sense. "Primitive" tribesmen often do war dances to demonstrate their ability to protect the children. On the other hand, when soldiers go off to war to protect the children, it's the guys who stay home who get the chicks and make more children. (On the other other hand, the soldiers who do survive can cause a Baby Boom when they do return.)

That's what I say. So since morality is relative (what we think and hope is right at the moment), it doesn't matter whether there really "is" an absolute right. Good point. The cost-benefit equation for evolution can get pretty complicated.

Sure we can. We can distinguish between moral behaviour and immoral behaviour, can't we? We might not agree on whether the behaviour is moral or immoral, but we can still see the morality or lack of morality. Well, they do exist (see above). Morals evolved. Behaviour that "works" for our species - e.g. helping each other - is generally considered moral. Behaviour that endangers our species - e.g. killing each other - is generally considered immoral.We have learned what morals work and what morals don't work - and as situations change, we have to change our morals to suit the situation, to keep them working for us. That's a cute idea for a story. Somebody should write a book about it.But reality isn't simple. Sometimes we "need" to kill members of our own species to protect other members of our species. Even the craziest fundamentalists interpret the Ten Commandments pretty loosely, because you have to. Evolution is practical, not dogmatic.

I personally wouldn't call it objective if it can only be observed in hindsight. That's like saying Columbus was objectively searching for America.

I'm not talking about rules at all. I'm talking about individual morals. Our society teaches us moral values which we internalize. As Paul put it:

quote:

---

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

---

Evolution explains quite nicely how morals are "written on our hearts" - i.e. in our consciences.

I touched on it in Message 306:

quote:

---

Behaviour that "works" for our species - e.g. helping each other - is generally considered moral. Behaviour that endangers our species - e.g. killing each other - is generally considered immoral.
We have learned what morals work and what morals don't work - and as situations change, we have to change our morals to suit the situation, to keep them working for us.

---

Even religionists who claim that their morals were "imparted" by some god keep changing their morals to fit the times. Morals are a natural offshoot of social behaviour, so they most likely go back at least as far as the early mammals.

I'm glad the fuse is lit because I've told you about all I know. There are people on this board who can certainly tell you more.

In evolution, there is no "higher"; there is no "perfection". There is only fitness for the current conditions.Apparently Satan has been giving you bad information.

Morality based on body count? I don't think so. I'd say it's the opposite. Much of our morality is based on doing what's best for an individual, even if it puts larger numbers at risk. I don't think either gun laws or prohibition have much to do with morality. They're just practical matters, like food and shelter. But what's "good" is highly subjective. Crocodiles can only survive in a fairly restricted environment, compared to humans, for example - but they've been doing it for a lot longer than we have. Should we measure "higher" in terms of more environments or more "survival/extinction incidents"?

That's an attempt to dictate morality by fairly arbitrary means. They might as well say you'll be more moral if you wear green socks. I don't see what it has to do with actual morality. Again, it's an attempt to dictate morality. Real morality comes from within; it's a willingness to conform to society (although it doesn't sound very attractive when put that way). Forced morality doesn't fail because of "cost to the individual". It fails because the internal pressure to "conform" is greater than the external pressure. The carrot is more effective than the stick. So being more "highly evolved" depends on being average?