Morality without God is impossible

Just some rambling from me, could be irrelevant to your point:To me, this is dangerously close to the same idea that Dogmafood is promoting - that "if something seems like instinct/training - then it is."
I don't think that's true.For example:
Take something that is definitely instinct/training:
-a boxer trains over and over to deliver a "counter-punch" in the heat of a flurry of back-and-forth punches.
-the idea is to make such a thing "muscle-memory" so as to turn the counter-punch into an instinct.
-when the flurry of punches is ongoing, this muscle-memory can take over without the boxer even thinking about it, and can even result in a perfectly timed knock-out blow
-when this happens (muscle-memory take-over and a counter-punch is thrown without the boxer even thinking about it) - then it is definitely instinct/trainingBut: Just because it can, does that mean it always is?
-In any high-level boxing match, I'm sure there are many "muscle-memory" counters that are driven as a result of this instinct/training
-However, the boxer isn't "not thinking at all" and is still thinking about the fight and when to do what at any given moment
-Therefore, some of the counter-punches (if the boxer happens to be focused on counter-ing during a certain exchange) certainly can be "intelligent-level decisions from the boxer" and not motivated by "instinct/training."
-and such a difference from instinctual/training counters can be entirely indistinguishable from any 3rd party observer watching the matchSo - if it's possible for any particular counter-punch to be from instinct/training or the boxer's intelligent-level decision making; how do we tell the difference?
-as far as I'm aware; current science is very interested and heavily studying this in order to attempt to identify such a thing
-but, I believe current progress is at an early-level "not sure yet - give us some more years of study to investigate further" levelTherefore - any conclusion of "it must be instinct/training!" or even "it must be intelligent-level decisions!" would be equally wrong - we can't possibly know either.
All we can know right now, is that it could be either and that "the boxer himself" is the best possible source of identifying such a thing (and it could even be unknown or mis-identified from the boxer!)

I don't understand the point you're trying to make - if you're trying to make one? This is not true.You know full well that the way evolution works is "good enough" and not "absolutely perfect."
Therefore, there is room to make some decisions that are not "naturally doing what they've been 'designed' to do" and not die.Humans are able to make some such decisions on a larger scale.
Animals are able to make some such decisions on a smaller scale - yet they do still exist.And, it's still a fact that there's no actual scientific way to say a decision is being made one way or another.
So your insistence that you can identify such in animals, and ALL animal decisions are instinctual (naturally doing what they've been 'designed' to do) is false.All I have to do is to show one decision by one animal that could have gone a few different ways - and the animal wouldn't "die" if it did it slightly differently - and your premise is shown to be false.Here's a blog on how dogs act in ways that are not driven by "if they didn't naturally do this as they've been 'designed' - then they'd die:" Do Dogs Think?She calls it "thinking" where I've been saying things like "intelligent decision making" but the idea is the same.
Dogs (and my claim is other animals, too) have the ability for intelligent decision making beyond instinctual "natural" reactions.
The blog includes examples of dog's forethought and problem solving. Things that involve multiple intellectual decisions.If you say this doesn't prove dogs do anything beyond "their naturally designed abilities."
Then you'll run into the same problem with humans - which is equivalent to saying there's no such thing as "choice" and all our decisions are nothing but illusions.
(I don't have a specific rebuttal for this position - as I don't think one exists - but to claim it and say it "must be" this way is just as bad.)

"A human would die if it 'decided' to eat only McDonald's. A human eats only what it's evolved to eat, otherwise it dies because its digestive system works that way."You seem to want to make a distinction only for animals - but it seems equally applicable to humans. If humans do not actually make decisions - if we only do what we're naturally 'designed' to do without any intellectual decision making - then all decisions/choices are nothing but the illusion of decision/choice and we're all robots. And robots don't have morality.This idea you're promoting, that animals are not capable of making intelligent decisions - and how it seems to equally apply to humans, has the consequence of turning humans into robots who do not have morality at all.If you want to say humans have morality - and then argue if it can exist without God or not - you need to show a clear delineation between animals and humans for this idea of "only naturally doing what they're 'designed' to do" (instincts - why animals cannot avoid them yet human can) or accept that animals don't always act on instincts and are quite capable of making (some/limited..) intelligent decisions.

I don't think so, no.Can't the same be said for the dogs in the previous link I gave you?
If so - again - what's the difference between animals and humans other than one of degree?If you think the "degree" makes the difference - where does it specifically stop in animals, and specifically start in humans?It is my position that you cannot identify such specifics because they don't exist.
Your continued reliance on phrasing-without-providing-specifics is so far confirming that idea. More phrasing.
Specifics are required in order to see if what you say is true or not.What "executive functioning" is only able to be done in humans that shows "thinking required for morality" that animals do not possess?
Can you identify an example? One that all/any humans are capable of but no animals can do?Since animals have shown they're capable of forethought, problem-solving, and learning - my claim remains that you will be unable to do this. You do if you're trying to say morality exists in humans and not in animals.
If you don't care - then stop such things and move on.But if you continue to say such things, with no ability to show that what-you-say-is-true, I'm going to point it out that what you're saying isn't true. If animals don't show "enough signs of intelligence" to show that animals can have morality - and you're unable to show a specific difference delineating between animal and human morality - then humans also can't show "enough signs of intelligence" to show morality - and you've turned humans into robots with no morality.And that means humans, as well, no matter how many times they come here and comment on the trolley problem - it doesn't matter because they're robots with no morality.If you don't care about animal morality, and just want to talk about human morality - I'm game for that.
But that would require you to stop saying animals can't be moral. You'll have to just ignore that part if you don't want responses to it.

Many various biological systems exist in dogs (and humans) that do not exist in amoeba.
For one, amoeba's do not have brains at all, and there are no known examples of amoeba acting altruistically, or with forethought, or using "thinking" for problem solving skills.
But humans do, and dogs do. Absolutely.And, as I just showed you, there is a clear line of delineation between dogs and amoeba that does not exist between humans and dogs.
Therefore your point is valid between dogs and amoeba, and invalid between humans and dogs.Humans have brains, act altruistically, act with forethought, use thinking for problem solving skills.
Dogs have brains, act altruistically, act with forethought, use thinking for problem solving skills.
Amoebas do not have brains, don't act altruistically, don't act with forethought, don't use thinking for problem solving skills.Sure, there's "a level of degree" between all 3.
But the level of degree between dogs and amoebas is much greater (with a clear line of delineation we can draw) than that between humans and dogs.If what's required for morality is a sense of compassion and empathy, and dogs show examples that they can have these senses (to a lesser degree than us... but still there all the same.) What's to say "dog's can't have morality!" rather than "dog's can have morality, just at a lesser degree than humans?"You have yet to provide anything to show that "dog's can't have morality" is a valid position in any way at all.
It's only tradition and "what people tend to unthinkingly agree with" to back you up - things we both know are not only useless; but generally huge red flags telling us that this idea is likely wrong. I'll stop talking about dogs as soon as you stop saying untrue things about them.
You don't get to ask me questions about dogs, or make untrue statements about them, and then suggest we "stay on topic" and not discuss dogs with any degree of righteousness. Such actions are nothing more than cowardly and silly.

Thank-you, that's all you ever had to say.Although I think "higher animals" includes almost all mammals, and likely other animals as well.
-but this is my own personal view and I understand that others' may vary and such a fine-line is a topic for another thread I always accepted this, or at least the idea of it.
Without any actual scale - there's no way to say if it's "one order of magnitude" or many... but that's a quibbly irelevancy.
The only thing I didn't accept was any implication that animals had "no morality" simply because humans' is much more advanced - it doesn't even make sense. Yes. I think the answer is:
If you think God is required for all things - then of course God is required for morality.
If you think God is not required for some things, and evidence is your guide as to when He's required or not - then it's likely you'll also think God is not required for morality (as there's just as much evidence for morality-requiring-God as there is for the-moon-causing-tides-on-earth-requiring-God; that is - none at all for both with both are equally supported by evidence to occur naturally without the need for any intervention.) I'm good.
Was just replying to claimed statements I felt were incorrect.

"The difference is that with the non-physical you can objectively say that 'helping-the-elderly-cross-the-street' is bad because it doesn't contain any apples. Unless, of course, the elderly is carrying apples - in which case, it would be good."There you have it.
Objective identification of morality based on the moral rule "if the scenario contains apples - then it's good, if not - then it's bad."
-admittedly, this is a silly Moral Rule and I would plead that no one follow it
-however, it is sufficient to show that this idea you have on a physical vs. non-physical barrier is actually non-existant.Your point here is blown-out-of-the-water wrong.It is not the physical/non-physical part that's an issue with morality.
Morality can have rules, and those rules can be used to objectively identify scenarios as good or bad.The issue is whether or not we can find "useful rules."
-Is "good = apples, bad = no apples" a useful rule? - obviously not, let's trash it
-Are "the 10 commandments" useful rules? - maybe, maybe not, let's discuss it
-Is "good = helping, bad = hurting" a useful rule? - maybe, maybe not, let's discuss itJust like rulers.Without "useful length-rulers" - we cannot objectively say a foot is longer than an inch - because "foot" and "inch" are things imagined by humans - they are subjective concepts.Without "useful morality-rules" - we cannot objectively say "generosity is good" and "greed is bad" - because "good" and "bad" are things imagined by humans - they are subjective concepts.But, once we have a useful comparison metric, we can objectively measure things against it.
-regardless of whether or not the metric is subjective or objective!
-in fact, if the comparison metric is subjective or objective is irrelevant to how useful it is! "Usefulness" is a subjective concept and is therefore dependent on the situations and scenarios at hand.Once we have a subjectively-agreed-upon Imperial Ruler - we can objectively say a foot is longer than an inch (in comparison to the subjective-Imperial-Ruler.)Once we have a subjectively-agreed-upon Morality Rule - we can objectively say "generosity is good" and "greed is bad" (in comparison to the subjective-Morality-Rule.)Physical vs. non-physical doesn't make a difference.
The only difference is whether or not humans have imagined useful "comparison tools" (length-rulers or morality-rules" that they agree to use to make judgments against. And people intuitively seem to know that arms are longer than fingers regardless of whether we live by the Imperial Ruler axiom or not.-this doesn't remove the fact the the Imperial Ruler is imagined and subjective
-this doesn't remove the fact that the Imperial Ruler allows for much greater, fine-tuned, "subtle-er" comparisons-it only shows that "length" is a part of the universe we inhabit, and it would be nice for us to have a useful comparison metric
-it only shows that "morality" is a part of the universe we inhabit, and it would be nice for us to have a useful comparison metric Exactly - you have your ideas on what the "Morality-Rules" should be, I have mine, this village has theirs, that country has theirs.
Just like the varying ideas of "Length-Rulers" used to be thousands of years ago.This issue doesn't prevent "identifying-and-understanding a world-wide set of Morality-Rules."
It only shows that we are in the infancy stages of getting there.
Just like Length-Rulers once were. Is the Imperial Ruler actually right or not?
Or is the Metric Ruler actually right or not?My point here is still that physical vs. non-physical does not matter.
If you can get past this physical vs. non-physical barrier in your mind that doesn't actually affect the issue - then we can move onto more subtleties like this question.
But, if you insist that physical vs. non-physical is indeed a barrier - we'll never be able to accurately discuss fine-points like this one. This sounds like more of an issue on "what are the actually useful Moral Rules?" than an issue on if subjectively imagined Moral Rules can be used to objectively describe good-vs-bad and if physical vs. non-physical is actually a problem.Again - only if we can get past this physical vs. non-physical barrier can we discuss such finer points.If you look at "all the confusion" surrounding a vast topic, throw up your hands and say "Well, this is out of my league! I can't sort this out immediately, therefore, there's no way to do so! This must be all controlled by some higher power or else none of it would ever work!" - then you've created a self-fulfilling prophecy.But, if you break down the concept into smaller parts, and see if you may be able to work out those smaller parts... then you can make progress.
Maybe those smaller parts still won't make sense - and maybe those smaller parts will show you that God definitely exists, and MUST be in control of the process.
Or maybe those smaller parts will be analogous to other vast systems that are already in place and working, and you can use those previous-ideas to understand this idea, and everything will eventually make sense.How will you ever know if one or the other is actually correct if you don't take the time to break it down and take a look? Maybe you are.
But I can assure you - my talk of Morality Rules is as much 'controlling humans' as Imperial Rulers 'control bridges'
The comparison metrics (Morality Rules or Length Rulers) are only intended to provide a guide to compare things against.
To provide a guide for identification of Morals or identification of Length.
What you do with those Morals, or Length, after it's been identified is another issue altogether. Just like building a bridge isn't "controlled" by rulers - but having rulers around certainly makes it a hell-of-a-lot-easier to build a bridge.I do not intend for Morality Rules to control people. But, if people want to be moral, then having Morality Rules around will make it a hell-of-a-lot-easier.
No? If you base unknowns on "belief" - then you are correct.
If you base unknowns on "tentative conclusions based on the available evidence - willing to update your answer upon the arrival of new evidence" - then you are not correct; it is no longer a "matter of belief" but it then becomes a "matter of evidence."Your choice as to if "belief" or "evidence" has a better historical track-record for eventually leading to being right or wrong.

I still don't see how you conclude this. Yes, I certainly agree with this. I don't see how you make the giant leap to this conclusion.Our top scientists in the leading cognitive behavioural fields studying exactly this sort of thing currently have no idea how to specifically identify "the goal that is served" for any choice we currently make.Yet - you think you're able to do it for all choices ever?
And you've identified it for all of them to be "to live and/or reproduce?"How?Again - just because it's possible to think of a "living/reproducing as a goal that's served by some, even many, choices" doesn't mean that any particular choice was actually made to "serve those goals."

And continue to contradict yourself.The very next thing you say is: Do animals show "moral-like behaviours?" (as you've already said) or do you believe they are not moral agents?"
Or are you going to quibble that having "moral-like behaviours" isn't actually being a "moral agent" and that's a definition (that remains vague and undefined...) reserved only for humans? Sure.
"Very limited in comparison to humans" isn't the same as "has none."
The more you continue to claim/heavily-imply that they are the same - without any evidence to back yourself up - the more silly you look.Thanks for the article, though: The Moral Status of Animals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)Did you read it at all?It doesn't answer the question.
It basically just agrees with me and says "What the basis of moral consideration is and what it amounts to has been the source of much disagreement."
That is equivalent to my statement that "no clear line of delineation between animals and humans in the context of morality is possible."About your side of the argument, though (that animals are not moral agents,) it does not look favorably:

quote:

---

Some argue that there is an answer that can distinguish humans from the rest of the natural world. Many of those who accept this answer are interested in justifying certain human practices towards non-humanspractices that cause pain, discomfort, suffering and death. This latter group expects that in answering the question in a particular way, humans will be justified in granting moral consideration to other humans that is neither required nor justified when considering non-human animals.

---

It's the academic way of saying "anyone who thinks animals aren't moral is just an asshole or has never owned a pet."If that's the side you want to cling to - without any evidence - it's all yours.

It's only just as easy if you refuse to look at the evidence.Looking at the evidence, it's highly implied that the "low-order moral behaviour" of animals includes an aspect of moral agency capable of rational choice, conceptual and future thinking (evidence of this is provided in the link I gave you earlier: Do Dogs Think?)If you're going to define "moral agency" as "full moral agents capable of rational choice, conceptual and future thinking (that only exists in humans.)"
Then - yeah - you've created circular logic in defining animals out of being "moral agents" - against the evidence that they do, in fact, are capable of "rational choice, conceptual and future thinking." It's a difference that allows us to have (much) more.
It doesn't prevent them from having some.This line you've drawn doesn't actually exist - as shown by the evidence I provided in my link. It's also the majority position to believe in some kind of God/Higher Power.
That position is also against the evidence. I agree.
It's your thread.
You can stop talking about it, or create another one for this side topic according to your own preference.
As long as you continue to discuss it here - I'll consider that your acceptance that you're okay talking about it and continue to respond to you here. Regardless of how many times you end your argument by saying otherwise.

This was bothering me, not really sure why.But I did some spot-checking. Seems like there's still a lot of unfinished work (and therefore confusion) on this topic.There is indication that cats are, indeed, self aware: Cats have self-awareness and excellent memoriesHere's a list of Animals Recognizing Themselves In The Mirror and it doesn't include cats or dogs.The defence for cats: "You've never met my cat!"
-I don't know what that's worth, but I would tend to agree (my cats do seem to recognize themselves in mirrors just fine.)
-Is there a flaw in the mirror-test that cats simply don't care to "pass?" (Let's face it, the animals likely don't even know they're being "tested" at all.)
-Were "stupid cats" tested and therefore failed?
-Could it be regional or otherwise selective? Maybe cats-taken-from-shelters are too focused on their own survival to worry about a dot painted on them? Maybe cats kept in good homes for years would be able to pass some-other-developed "self-awareness" test?I dunno.
It just bothered me, and I looked up some stuff and felt like posting it.

Agreed. I'm not saying that point of evolution should be considered anything else.I'm saying there are more "points of evolution" beyond that one, before you get to where mammals are now.
And then beyond that, there's more "points of evolution" beyond that one, before you get to where humans are now.The fundamental difference, though, is that somewhere in all those "points of evolution" we developed enough intelligence to reflect on our survival and our motivations and use forethought and reason to make choices that (seemingly) don't necessarily align with the basic idea of survival or even don't take it into account at all.This evidence of "people can choose to die" or "people can choose to be destructive" or "people can choose to not reproduce" flies directly in the face of what you're claiming. They are not "outliers" - there are a significant number of them (we can all do it, pretty much and it doesn't require any "deformations.")And, you still haven't answered the question.Again: Our top scientists in the leading cognitive behavioural fields studying exactly this sort of thing currently have no idea how to specifically identify "the goal that is served" for any choice we currently make.
Yet - you think you're able to do it for all choices ever?
And you've identified it for all of them to be "to live and/or reproduce?"
How?Your response isn't an answer to that question.
It's a "well, it was like this in our ancestors - so why not now?"
And the answer to that is: "well, we can make a hell of a lot more anti-survival choices than our ancestors could."You don't have any science.
You don't have any brain scans.
You don't have any measurement of "motivation that's based on survival" at all.Yet - you think you can measure it so well you can definitively say that all our choices are linked to it because at some point our ancestors' were?
At some point our ancestors had no arms.
Now we have arms.
Your argument would imply that we don't really have arms - just the illusion of arms.
It's silly.
[ABE: The whole result of evolution is that's is possible for it to create new abilities that didn't exist before.
Why do you think it's impossible for evolution to create an ability (consciousness) in humans to allow us to decide based on "choice" rather than "the chemical reactions driving survival?"]Our best scientists are working on the science.
They're trying to get information from brain scans.
They're trying to develop some sort of measurement for "what kind of motivation actually causes this choice?"So far - they have nothing buy "we don't know - give us more time."
Yet - against this - you think you have the answer?Edited by Stile, : Added clarity to the idea that evolution's entire history is based on "adding abilities that didn't exist before."

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing anymore?I'm under the impression that you're claiming that "all choices" are made in order to promote survival/reproduction... etc.
No?If you're not saying that, then I think we agree and we just have different/conflicting communication skills.Are you simply saying that "some level of survival/reproduction is considered when anyone makes a decision?"
-I can agree with that
-As long as "the motivation" for the decision is allowed to be "whatever the person decided upon in the end" and not necessarily to promote survival/reproduction. I'm not claiming that consiousness and memory are not abilities that are beneficial to surival.
I'm claiming that you don't know "where those qualities reside and how they work" to the level of saying that "all choices" are made in order to promote survivalt/reproduction.You're the one who seems to say you can know "where those qualities reside and how they work."
-again, if you're not actually saying this, then we likely agree. The ones that resulted in our ability to make choices instead of having to rely on instints. Choice: Use of forethought, reason and past-experience-reflection to weight options and consciously pick one for execution.
Instinct: No use of forethought, reason or past-experience-reflection to weigh options - the reaction is unconsciously executed. None, as far as I'm aware.
And this doesn't seem to change the difference between choice/instinct in any way.Just because two things both "involve nothing more than chemical reactions" doesn't mean one can't be much more complicated and have it's own emergent results ("choice") that doesn't exist in the other ("instinct.") This seems like circular reasoning.
This implies that choices made for "non-survival/reproduction reasons" are actually done for survival reasons... it's just not successful.
It begs the same question - what metric are you using to identify "done for survival reasons" if "the actual reason described by the executer-of-the-action" doesn't count? Right. You can choose one that fits more with the evidence (like mine - that we can make choices against our innate need for survival) or against the evidence (like yours - that all choices are made attempting to promote survival/reproduction.)Evidence: The Entertainment Industry.Entertainment is not required for survival or reproduction.
And there are many other ways to remain "not bored."The choice to engage in entertainment is therefore not connected to survival or reproduction.
Once that's made... the choice on "what kind of entertainment" to execute is ever further removed from considering survival or reproduction.Have you ever heard of Maslow's Pyramid?It is an understood concept in Psychology of how people's needs drive their decision making.
Basic needs (food/water/shelter) are more weighted to promote instinctual responses.
However, once these needs (and other lower-needs) are met and people have the opportunity to make decisions on things like "self-fulfillment" - these decisions are much more "choice-based" as opposed to being instinctual responses.The effects of Maslow's Pyramid are seen in many animals as well.
Homeless people/stray cats act in a similar manner - with many decisions being made instinctually in the hunt for food/shelter/water.
Comfortable people/house cats act in a similar manner - with many decisions being made 'by choice' with needs like food/shelter/water fulfilled and understood (rightly or wrongly) that they will be fulfilled "in the future" as well.

How are you so sure that those elements are used "as a foundation for every evaluation" and not "something that's moved past, and no longer required to be considered?"Especially when the evidence leans in the latter direction. This is not true.
There are many evaluations that that are not based on whether or not they will benefit the actor. Your own example isn't even true.The trolley problem actually supports my side of this issue....That there are instinctual decisions (more based on things you're assuming.. but still not 100%).
And intellectual decisions (more based on reasoning/forethought/experience... no longer necessarily based on survival or reproduction.)Here's the wiki: Trolley ProblemUnder the Empirical Research section:

quote:

---

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, they demonstrated that "personal" dilemmas (like pushing a man off a footbridge) preferentially engage brain regions associated with emotion, whereas "impersonal" dilemmas (like diverting the trolley by flipping a switch) preferentially engaged regions associated with controlled reasoning.

---

That is, there's brain scans showing that not all decisions use the same areas of the brain.
This would support that some would be more instinctual ("associated with emotion") and others would be more intellectual ("associated with controlled reasoning.")
This would go against the idea that "all decisions use survival considerations as a foundation."Under the Survey Data section:

quote:

---

The trolley problem has been the subject of many surveys in which approximately 90% of respondents have chosen to kill the one and save the five. If the situation is modified where the one sacrificed for the five was a relative or romantic partner, respondents are much less likely to be willing to sacrifice their life.

​

A 2009 survey published in a 2013 paper by David Bourget and David Chalmers shows that 69.9% of professional philosophers would switch (sacrifice the one individual to save five lives) in the case of the trolley problem. 8% would not switch, and the remaining 24% had another view or could not answer.

---

Which also strongly implies that that instinctual decisions (those with less preparation or study...) will fall back on instinctual/foundational considerations. This would be the survey of general population respondents resulting in a 90/10 split.While the survey of philosophers (those who would be more inclined to use their reasoning/study/fore-thought for such a decision) was more of a 70/8/24 split. Implying that when using "reason" instead of "instincts" - our decision making is different.There's even the single "Real Life Incident" where people chose the seemingly-less-likely option to switch the track and put the smaller amount of people in mortal danger.All of the resulting data from the Trolley problem acts as evidence for my position, and against the idea that "all decisions use the same foundation." Brain scans (evidence) show that there is more of a difference that this at work. I don't think you understand Maslow's Pyramid.The pyramid structure does not imply that all decisions are made using the foundational base.
The pyramid structure implies that the foundational base needs must be met before one is able to "freely" make decisions on the upper levels of the pyramid.The entire structure/acceptance/tested/verified nature of Maslow's Pyramid is a description on how we have instinctual requirements that need to be met (survival) - but once those are met, we are free to move onto more and more "frivolous" choices that no longer need to consider the lower requirements.

Pretty much anything, really.
A decently working one: "Good = that which helps people; Bad = that which hurts people; with help/hurt defined by the people affected."
A terribly working one: "Good = anything involving apples; Bad = anything that does not involve apples."Both can be a basis to anyone who chooses to accept/follow them.
As long as they have the intelligence required to make such a decision. So what?Arms exist because they helped us reach food better.
Does that mean arms cannot be used to play tennis?Kindness, fairness, altruism, self-sacrifice, charity, mercy, love all exist because they helped the actor feel good or the least amount of bad - which developed as a means to help survival.
Does that mean they cannot be used for reasons other than survival? That's how it started, sure.
That's not how it always works in a being with enough intelligence to make decisions and override their instincts, though. Yes, I know, and it's still wrong.
It's like saying "all cars drive the same way because they all have a chassis."A Ford Focus does not drive the same as an F1 racer - even though they both have a chassis as their foundation.You're taking "something that's foundationally similar" and trying to say "all resulting possibilities must therefore also be the same!"It's ridiculous. Different experiences AND different equation.
The only similarity is that we all have "AN" equation and some portion of that equation is based on survival - a portion that has the possibility of being "multiplied by 0" to nullify it's effects in certain people/situations. Fully agreed.But everyone's equation on what makes them feel the most good or the least bad is different.
Not everyone's equation always uses "survival" as a factor.If you want to say it does - you have to show this.
Against all the evidence against your position (brain scans, even.) Kindness and love CAN be beneficial to survival by helping the group. If the group survives - the species survives.
This doesn't mean, though, that all acts of kindness/love must be due to a motivation to help the group survive.
Especially in any species that is intelligent enough to think about and override their instincts due to conscious reflection and decision making. Because species develop from instinctual to intelligent as brains have a chance of becoming more complex over time.
While a species' brain is unable to make intelligent decisions, and is almost entirely instinctual - selfishness is more likely to lead to death of the species.Of course - once a species obtains intelligence and is able to reflect and make conscious decisions that can override the instinctual motivation - this all becomes moot.Unless you're able to show otherwise? Against the evidence? Sure.Regardless of whether or not intelligence came from natural evolution or God - the result is the same - as long as intelligence exists where one can reflect and make conscious decisions to override their instincts - then this idea of "all decisions are made due to survival (or any other single motivation)" is silly and easily shown to be false by the existence of such things as "entertainment."It doesn't matter if all decisions "used to" be made to enable survival (otherwise the species would die out while acting instinctively.)
Once the conscious decision making exists - then it exists.