Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
104 online now:
dwise1, ringo (2 members, 102 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,049 Year: 5,161/6,534 Month: 4/577 Week: 72/135 Day: 3/1 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 38 of 64 (562191)
05-26-2010 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by MrQ
04-09-2010 5:43 PM


Also when you do an immoral act there is a sense of gilt after it. I don't believe any animal have such feelings.

You've obviously never owned a dog, or seen one after it's taken the meat from the table!

But what I couldn't figure out yet is the conscious in us. For example, we some how value moral acts and there is a sense of content and satisfaction after it. Also when you do an immoral act there is a sense of gilt after it.

The logic behind why this is the case is quite straightforward. Our emotions drive our behaviour. We like to do things that feel good, and we don't like to do things that feel bad. If we accept "good" moral acts as being beneficial ones, and in general that means acts which aid cooperation between humans, then it is easy to understand why evolution would make us feel good when we carry out such acts. And vice versa with "bad" moral acts.

There is no mystery why we feel good about doing "good" things. If humans benefited from non-cooperative behaviour, then evolution would have ensured we felt good about doing non-cooperative acts, and we would regard them as being "good" moral acts.

I'm not sure about the blush. Maybe knowing that we will give ourselves away by blushing is an incentive to prevent us from lying or making a fool of ourselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by MrQ, posted 04-09-2010 5:43 PM MrQ has taken no action

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4217 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 44 of 64 (562366)
05-28-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
05-28-2010 4:11 AM


And it most mutations are said to be destructive and harmful and the minority of lucky ones are helpful, why don't we see many fold more fossils of the harmfully effected organisms.

A) Because most mutations from one generation to the next are too small to notice (especially in a fossil)

and

B) Because any mutations that are so "destructive or harmful" as to be visible in a fossil will likely have only existed in 1 individual (because it won't have been able to reproduce). The number of individuals that become fossilised and are found are a tiny fraction of the total number of individuals from their species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 05-28-2010 4:11 AM jaywill has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022