Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

Well, maybe black is white in some cases but I'm not seeing it. Can you elaborate? How would an individual; "get society" to conform to his needs? I'm the first one to say that consensus is the first step toward objectivity - but I think what you're talking about is only consensus, not real objectivity.

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.

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.

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.

I suppose our main point of disagreement is the definition of the word "objective". I tend to think of objectivity as dealing with an object - i.e. something that has definite qualities and/or quantities. We can objectively measure a two-by-four without knowing what it is; we're only interested in the qualities and/or quantities of the object itself.What you're describing seems more like a collective subjectivity, a consensus of opinion based on highly subjective criteria rather than on a real-world object. We can look back on results that suited us but what's good for us isn't necessarily "good". Some species, sure. But other species survive by being more specialized. Shouldn't that put them on a "higher scale of fitness" too?

Exactly. It's subjective. And different subjects have different standards for that assessment.Since when does anybody think in terms of what's good for "humans as a species" anyway? No. Accidentally arriving at a conclusion that seems correct in retrospect does not indicate objectivity.

How is that a response to what I said? Please ty to make a clear point.