Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve argued in favor of evolved morality ad nauseum on PWI only to be met with derision and ridicule from our resident conservatives.[/quote]

That’s because your arguments were awful and incorrect.[/quote]

No, it’s because you can’t argue stuff like that and expect a response that isn’t about God. You can’t fight people like that because it will always be a case of they are right and you are wrong because they have God on their side and you don’t. And when you ask them to take God out of the equation, they insist they cannot because there is no life or morality without God. [/quote]

We can also reverse the argument to reveal the same response from people who argue from a scientific framework. They insist they have “science” on their side but most aren’t even trained scientists advancing the arguments.

I find it highly dubious that anyone will ever observe a biological manifestation of morality.

Instead I think morality is rationally intuited rather than coming from the divine or being biologically evolved.[/quote]

How much research have you put into disproving yourself?

42

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve argued in favor of evolved morality ad nauseum on PWI only to be met with derision and ridicule from our resident conservatives.[/quote]

That’s because your arguments were awful and incorrect.[/quote]

No, it’s because you can’t argue stuff like that and expect a response that isn’t about God. You can’t fight people like that because it will always be a case of they are right and you are wrong because they have God on their side and you don’t. And when you ask them to take God out of the equation, they insist they cannot because there is no life or morality without God. [/quote]

That doesn’t change the fact Eph’s arguments were awful and incorrect.

And I doubt you can legitimately comment here because you didn’t participate in PWI back when Eph was awfully and incorrectly presenting his case(s). By that I mean I’m assuming you didn’t read the Dutch America-hater’s posts.[/quote]

No, I wasn’t but I also don’t think his recent arguments were that awful.

43

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Morality is itself an evolving idea.

In so far as man is capable of reason he is capable of learning that his actions have consequence. Humans did not evolve into morality so much as reason it.

Morality is a statement of fact about how individuals should behave within an ethical framework.

What if Dr. de Waal has it backward?

What if rather than evolution producing morality it was the intellectual development of morality that improved man’s ability to evolve?[/quote]

The ability of feel empathy for another, as shown to exist in other animals, must’ve come first in the evolutionary process otherwise you’d argue that our current moral structure came first, and the physical abilities later.

That doesn’t make sense.
[/quote]

So that doesn’t change anything. Could have evolving emotions made the ability to reason morality easier?

Do I really need empathy to know that killing someone is wrong? What if I am just logical and understand that other people might try to retaliate?[/quote]

Sociopaths can be very rational people. Some can understand logic quite well. They can reason out ethics. So what’s going wrong with them?

44

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Also, I don’t think we can really begin to understand “where morality comes from” until we know what it precisely is.[/quote]

Why do you think we don’t know what morality is?
[/quote]

Simple…Define it. When you find you cannot then you’ll understand we don’t really know what it is. We know things about it, based on that we know it exists, but we don’t know what it is, just like gravity. We know it exists based on it’s affect, but we don’t know what it is.

45

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Oleena argued in her other thread that “healthy and unhealthy behaviour” is “good and bad” behaviour.

I think that’s sufficient but Sloth dismissed it outright, and you will too, probably.
[/quote]

Of course I did, chewing tobacco doesn’t make one immoral.
[/quote]

Can a thing you do to yourself, by your own volition, be moral or immoral?[/quote]

Is it unhealthy?
[/quote]

It shouldn’t matter because this is your own choice.

Morality is about how you conduct yourself towards others and how your actions affect them. The “healthy - unhealthy” suggestion should therefore be seen in this light.

46

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve argued in favor of evolved morality ad nauseum on PWI only to be met with derision and ridicule from our resident conservatives.[/quote]

That’s because your arguments were awful and incorrect.[/quote]

No, it’s because you can’t argue stuff like that and expect a response that isn’t about God. You can’t fight people like that because it will always be a case of they are right and you are wrong because they have God on their side and you don’t. And when you ask them to take God out of the equation, they insist they cannot because there is no life or morality without God. [/quote]

We can also reverse the argument to reveal the same response from people who argue from a scientific framework. They insist they have “science” on their side but most aren’t even trained scientists advancing the arguments.

I find it highly dubious that anyone will ever observe a biological manifestation of morality.

Instead I think morality is rationally intuited rather than coming from the divine or being biologically evolved.[/quote]

How much research have you put into disproving yourself?[/quote]

How much research in your estimation would it require?

48

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Also, I don’t think we can really begin to understand “where morality comes from” until we know what it precisely is.[/quote]

Why do you think we don’t know what morality is?
[/quote]

Simple…Define it. When you find you cannot then you’ll understand we don’t really know what it is. We know things about it, based on that we know it exists, but we don’t know what it is, just like gravity. We know it exists based on it’s affect, but we don’t know what it is.[/quote]

Will this do?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

My definition would be that morality is a social construct or contract that allows a society to function properly.

49

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve argued in favor of evolved morality ad nauseum on PWI only to be met with derision and ridicule from our resident conservatives.[/quote]

That’s because your arguments were awful and incorrect.[/quote]

No, it’s because you can’t argue stuff like that and expect a response that isn’t about God. You can’t fight people like that because it will always be a case of they are right and you are wrong because they have God on their side and you don’t. And when you ask them to take God out of the equation, they insist they cannot because there is no life or morality without God. [/quote]

It begs the question, can you take God out of the equation? There is never a study or question that isn’t left wanting. Even if you answer unequivocally what morality is, it doesn’t then describe where it came from or it’s dependence. Of course, that is a whole other matter of cosmology, which deals with origin and dependence and that is not what this conversation is about, but it’s that little side topic that will revolve around like a moon around this one. So for the sake of argument we’ll leaving God out of it. Not in the terms that we will make an assumption on his existence, but we shall remain neutral on it…That is of course, you really, really, really, really want to go there.

50

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Also, I don’t think we can really begin to understand “where morality comes from” until we know what it precisely is.[/quote]

Why do you think we don’t know what morality is?
[/quote]

Simple…Define it. When you find you cannot then you’ll understand we don’t really know what it is. We know things about it, based on that we know it exists, but we don’t know what it is, just like gravity. We know it exists based on it’s affect, but we don’t know what it is.[/quote]

Will this do?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

My definition would be that morality is a social construct or contract that allows a society to function properly.[/quote]

It’s a non-definition definition. That merely describes several ‘takes’ on what it is, if you notice, the article doesn’t actually succeed in defining it.

Defining morality merely as a social construct that allows society to function is not the definition of morality. That is an utilitarian take on ethics is all that is. It doesn’t deal with freewill or the problem of evil. Society doesn’t have to be moral to function. Several ancient cultures where hopelessly morally repugnant and they functioned for many centuries.

Just like gravity, if you google it, you’ll get a definition, but you won’t get the definition of what it actually is.

51

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I’ve argued in favor of evolved morality ad nauseum on PWI only to be met with derision and ridicule from our resident conservatives.[/quote]

That’s because your arguments were awful and incorrect.[/quote]

No, it’s because you can’t argue stuff like that and expect a response that isn’t about God. You can’t fight people like that because it will always be a case of they are right and you are wrong because they have God on their side and you don’t. And when you ask them to take God out of the equation, they insist they cannot because there is no life or morality without God. [/quote]

That doesn’t change the fact Eph’s arguments were awful and incorrect.

And I doubt you can legitimately comment here because you didn’t participate in PWI back when Eph was awfully and incorrectly presenting his case(s). By that I mean I’m assuming you didn’t read the Dutch America-hater’s posts.[/quote]

No, I wasn’t but I also don’t think his recent arguments were that awful.
[/quote]

Well, subjectivity rears its ugly head now and then, doesn’t it?

In fact, complete objectivity would be an impossible task, wouldn’t you agree? I ask this because it’s ironic that this song is presently playing on my playlist as I type this post.

  • Look up the lyrics meaning if you don’t know it already.[/quote]

Yes, I would agree that complete objectivity is impossible. You can’t look at something without being colored by your life. Now, you can look at both sides of a topic equally and call that objectivity but you can’t make a decision about something without your life coloring it.

52

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

If you believe humans are something more than highly evolved animals you’d have trouble accepting this.

[/quote]

For once you are correct, Eph.

An understanding of origins is critical. If one is arguing or debating here or anywhere else for that matter and the fundamental world views in regards to origins differ radically then a meaningful exchange of ideas as in the case of the thread topic is virtually impossible.
[/quote]

I think that you, as a young earth creationist, would have a lot of trouble debating world views in a meaningful way, since your views are divorced from reality.

53

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Oleena wrote:

Third, how much does how we act have to do with our ideal morals as opposed to our morals being a justification of action under social pressures, which we might have taken anyway, regardless of reason?[/quote]

According to him, there is no ‘reason’ behind ‘morality.’ Only emotion. Reason is used to justify the decision later as being ‘moral’ or ‘immoral.’

[i]The reasoning came afterward as a post hoc justification. “Human behavior derives above all from fast, automated, emotional judgments, and only secondarily from slower conscious processes,” Dr. de Waal writes.

However much we may celebrate rationality, emotions are our compass, probably because they have been shaped by evolution, in Dr. de Waal’s view. For example, he says: “People object to moral solutions that involve hands-on harm to one another. This may be because hands-on violence has been subject to natural selection whereas utilitarian deliberations have not.”[/i]
[/quote]

I get that your point is that he isn’t saying for sure. However, you do realize that he’s not allowed to make a for sure statement about this if he wants to have a future career, correct?

Also, on a scale of 0-100%, how much do you think his suggestions about natural selection playing a role in group behaviors effects current human behavior?[/quote]

I see it as more circular. The body is present to give us a way to interact with the world. The body is shaped and formed by NS. That includes the capability to learn and understand morality. But Natural Selection doesn’t produce morality.

Practicing morality can then reinforce morality through feedback systems. Or it might not. You might starve, be taunted, or even die because of your moral system. In any event, it doesn’t answer what is ‘moral.’ Morals exist outside of human whim, or transient nature. If they’re properly morals, at least. Otherwise, they’re simply behaviors that may or may not be risky. I don’t put my hand on a hot stove. I might instinctively approach a snake with caution (if at all). But those aren’t moral precepts. I might approach a snake if I understand the risk, and am willing to take it. I might even put my hand on a hot stove for a few million (religious objections aside for a moment) dollars. Risk vs reward.

Murder and cannibalism is evil, even when starving. To a reasonaught, it might be moral in such circumstances. To a naturalist, it (murder and eat) might be the best adaptive response. Morals, you take intact to the grave, if need be.

55

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Morality is about how you conduct yourself towards others and how your actions affect them. [/quote]

It is?

56

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

Will this do?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

My definition would be that morality is a social construct or contract that allows a society to function properly.[/quote]

It’s a non-definition definition. That merely describes several ‘takes’ on what it is, if you notice, the article doesn’t actually succeed in defining it.

Defining morality merely as a social construct that allows society to function is not the definition of morality. That is an utilitarian take on ethics is all that is. It doesn’t deal with freewill or the problem of evil. Society doesn’t have to be moral to function. Several ancient cultures where hopelessly morally repugnant and they functioned for many centuries.

Just like gravity, if you google it, you’ll get a definition, but you won’t get the definition of what it actually is.[/quote]

So what? By that token you can’t define anything because we don’t know anything.

58

In any event, the author actually thinks human morality (or immorality) is impulsive, emotional. That reason really only catches up later to justify the action/thought that that already occurred. That’s not morality. That’s executing a program. And it says nothing about the execution or the result.

59

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

I think that you, as a young earth creationist, would have a lot of trouble debating world views in a meaningful way, since your views are divorced from reality.
[/quote]

But…then again…that judgment coming from you…would be awful and incorrect.[/quote]

You are not a young earth creationist?

60

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

So what? By that token you can’t define anything because we don’t know anything.
[/quote]

You can…based on your fundamental view of origins.[/quote]

Believing is not equal to knowing.