Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 0/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Evolutionary Basis for Ethics?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 57 (541487)
01-03-2010 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ATheist
12-20-2009 1:10 PM


Humans (Homo Erectus/Hobilis, and eventually Sapiens Sapiens), along with their technological advances, had the ability to produce much more than their single survival needs. This is to say, that we gained the ability to choose whether or not to produce more than we need. We have the ability to decide whether or not to care for other humans and provide for them. This is a profound distinction which no other species in history can say they have. It is also the basis for why I believe ethics are requisite for the survival of the species.
Well, there are really only two inferences from which to draw upon. Either ethics was intentionally bestowed upon humans through divine intervention or it all came about through random processes.
While I honestly don't care either way all that much, may I offer a caveat? There is a tendency in academia to draw conclusions far beyond their appropriateness in the form of story-telling, a story-telling which is no different than what could have been written in the annals of the bible or some other sacred text.
People invent storylines about neanderthals and other early man based soley on incomplete evidence. It is a dangerous proposition to inform laymen on their alleged daily rituals. It really irritates me when I watch the Discovery Channel and they have these elaborate storylines about early hominds or dinosaurs, which, by the way, they could not possibly know by looking at fossil remains or by examining arrowheads.
It's ridiculous and, more importantly, hypocritical to scoff at creationist nonsense as being fabrications when the opposite side is doing the same thing without realizing it.
This being the case you could not reasonably draw upon homo habilis to offer any answers about modern ethics. That's my take on it. Now, is it fun to speculate? Sure. But you really aren't going to get anywhere with it, seems to me.
What we do know about ethics, based on credible data from history, is that it has itself gone through a series of evolutions. Where it all began, we do not yet know and may never know.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ATheist, posted 12-20-2009 1:10 PM ATheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:56 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 57 (541525)
01-04-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Dr Adequate
01-03-2010 10:56 PM


You seem to be confusing "academia" with the Discovery Channel.
Isn't the D.C. or National Geographic inextricably linked to academia?

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-03-2010 10:56 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Huntard, posted 01-04-2010 9:48 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024