Roots of Human Morality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]Oleena wrote:

[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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy[/quote]

I have a real hard time accepting definitions that rely on emotional characteristics.

How do we measure the extent of an emotion?

Can we agree some people are just fucking crazy?

63

[quote]Grneyes wrote:

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]

If morality requires divinity or transcendence, and a person is arguing that it does (as in, it’s a necessary condition of anything we call “morality”), then you can’t take God out of the moral equation. That’s the entire point.

If you ask them to take God out of the equation, you are asking them to abandon their premise for morality in favor of your premise, which is exactly the topic what is being debated. That is precisely what is being argued for and against.

It’d be like having a debate about taxes, with one side arguing that lower taxes are better and the other side arguing that higher taxes are better, and then suggesting that, for purposes of the debate about taxes, everyone should assume that higher taxes are better.

Foolish.

64

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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.[/quote]

From the article:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality.

In other words, empathy gave rise to morality.

Are you dyslexic Sloth? You really seem to have trouble understanding written word.

66

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Practice what you preach.[/quote]

Are you a young earth creationist, pushharder?

Edit: you answered already and let me give you the courtesy of answering a question, something you have trouble extending…

You are not a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf?

No, I don’t hate the USA. Atheism is not a religion, but I don’t mind talking about it.

68

Sorry, the posts are getting mixed up. I’ve edited my post above your last one puss.

70

I have a healthy dislike for some aspects of your culture, but that’s not hate.

Believing that the young earth creation model offers anything of value, well… that’s your right but it has nothing to do with reality or truth for that matter.

71

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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.[/quote]

From the article:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality.

In other words, empathy gave rise to morality.

Are you dyslexic Sloth? You really seem to have trouble understanding written word.[/quote]

Heeeey EEEEEEPHEM.

The author, from the article

[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]

73

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[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.[/quote]

How do you know for sure that your own view on whether or not cannibalism is evil isn’t ethnocentric and that you wouldn’t be supporting cannibalism as highly moral if you had been raised in a place where it was practiced to honor the dead?

74

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
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.[/quote]

From the article:

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality.

In other words, empathy gave rise to morality.

Are you dyslexic Sloth? You really seem to have trouble understanding written word.[/quote]

Heeeey EEEEEEPHEM.

The author, from the article

[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]

So explain in your own words how de Waal’s assertions lead to you conclusion, “That’s not morality. That’s executing a program. And it says nothing about the execution or the result.”

Sorry for the dyslexic-jab.

75

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]

If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?

76

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[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?[/quote]

Probably about half a year of searching through journal articles.

78

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]

If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]

I’m still waiting for Push’s definition of religion.

79

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]

If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]

It is technically not a religion but its followers are indeed religious in their fervor to promote their belief in unbelief. They have a core set of beliefs that are taken on faith. They are in fact religious.

As to the second question maybe you might want to address that one. You tell me.[/quote]

I am partially with you on this one. So, would you say that agnosticism is a religion?

80

Sufiandy: The only requirement to be an atheist is to not believe in any god claims.

There’s nothing else to atheism other than that.