Message 963 of 1006 (808153)
05-08-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 886 by Dredge
05-04-2017 3:33 AM
Re: Evolutionists can not explain morals
I'm not required to prove the points you suggested because I put myself in the same boat as everyone else - ie, I can't prove that my code of morality is any more correct than anyone else's.
Then, by your own terms, your God derived absolute morality is unfounded and dispensable.
My point is that non-absolute subjective, non-God,derived morality is, if anything, more rational and able to be explained than that which you are proposing.
No, I don't think you can - because such facts would be nigh on impossible to get.
We can compare the religiosity of different societies and the respective crime rates and violent crime rates in those societies. I am not sure why you are saying we can't?
You are equating morality with survival.
Not really. I am saying that subjective moral tendencies have their roots in genetic propagation. There are plenty of evolutionary explanations for altruism and self-sacrifice. You just need to learn about them.
Kinship theory, non-zero sum game theory etc. I suggest the books of Robert Wright as an introduction to such ideas.
If a decrease in morality results in a decrease in the survival chances of humans, so what? Humans don't need to survive, so there is no need for morality.
Define "need" in this context....?
The idea that humans "need" to survive and that there will be a tendency towards moral imperatives that aid human survival (previous caveats implicit) is not the same thing.
As for the "need" for morality - Well, in evolutionary terms anything that enhances survival (more accurately gene propagation) will flourish. I am not sure of which part of that you are disagreeing with?
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 886 by Dredge, posted 05-04-2017 3:33 AM|| ||Dredge has not yet responded|