|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Wyrdly writes:
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". The ultimate moral authority is always a God or an earthly representative of deity such as divine emperor or pharaoh. In the absence of religion a society derives its morality from another source (the only eg. i can think of is the state in communist countries) Individuals and groups project their own morality on gods in an attempt to give some authority to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mike the wiz writes:
Religion doesn't explain the human condition, and never did. They can give excuses, but we don't have to buy them. Evolution 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
mike the wiz writes:
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.
I mean that when you say, "religion", you are referring to a wide and diverse spectrum of differing beliefs, but when I refer to evolution, I am referring to one specific theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ProtoTypical writes:
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. Sure there is a wide variety of thought but the proof is in the pudding. We can see if life benefits from our actions or not. Edited by ringo, : Spellin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
Why not? How can we know something "is" if there's no what of testing for it?
Don't confuse our ability to know what the best course of action is with the idea that there is a best course of action. ProtoTypical writes:
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. Once you have a goal then you can have a best course of action. Nature has uniformly provided us with that goal and morality involves recognizing the goal and having the intent to move toward it. Is there an evolutionary advantage to risking our lives for "fun"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Modulous writes:
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.
If you survive, you get laid. Modulous writes:
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.)
... dissuading enemies....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
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.
It matters more that we are trying to be right than that we actually are right. ProtoTypical writes:
Good point. The cost-benefit equation for evolution can get pretty complicated.
No we don't climb mountains for fun until we are thoroughly surviving and even then we are not trying to thwart the goal but rather leveraging it for excitement and excitement is practice for survival.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
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.
Can you see morals? Colbard writes:
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. If morals don't exist how come they are the only thing that can properly guard the physical and spiritual values of a society? 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.
Calbard writes:
That's a cute idea for a story. Somebody should write a book about it. Ten simple laws with tremendous results. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
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.
Is this not an objective base for morality? What 'works' can be seen in hindsight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
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:
The intelligent species has developed a means of enforcing its ideals onto others by rules, and the one with the most power makes the rules, right?quote:Evolution explains quite nicely how morals are "written on our hearts" - i.e. in our consciences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Colbard writes:
I touched on it in Message 306:
I would like to know more about the last sentence - how those morals came in through evolution.quote:Even religionists who claim that their morals were "imparted" by some god keep changing their morals to fit the times. Colbard writes:
Morals are a natural offshoot of social behaviour, so they most likely go back at least as far as the early mammals.
The question speaks for itself, but I was just wondering, when, at which stage of evolution did it became evident?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
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.
I have a lot to think about, because I have never heard this approach on the development of morals before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
In evolution, there is no "higher"; there is no "perfection". There is only fitness for the current conditions. "Rising higher and higher on the moral pedestal, evolution carries mankind to a point of perfection, where he is god."."- Satan Apparently Satan has been giving you bad information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
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.
In relation to morality, we behave a certain way and then we can see if that behaviour actually helps more people to survive and or thrive. ProtoTypical writes:
I don't think either gun laws or prohibition have much to do with morality. They're just practical matters, like food and shelter.
Like gun laws or prohibition. We can make the law and then see in hindsight if it was a good idea. ProtoTypical writes:
But what's "good" is highly subjective.
The objective objective of the most good for the most people remains. ProtoTypical writes:
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"?
Being able to survive in many environments is 'higher' up than being able to survive in only one environment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ProtoTypical writes:
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.
Consider the Catholic church's position on the use of condoms. Clearly this an example of a failed moral policy that has caused death and disease for millions. ProtoTypical writes:
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).
Prohibition of alcohol is the quintessential example of a moral policy. ProtoTypical writes:
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.
After trying it we can see that it is a bad idea that fails because the cost to the individual is too high. ProtoTypical writes:
So being more "highly evolved" depends on being average?
Being able to survive across a range of environments will, on average, equate to more surviving and less going extinct.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024