Double Standards of Secular Morality

[GrayAngel]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

When a wild animal is killed by another animal, or by sickness, or by any natural cause, what is our reaction? It's just natural selection, right? Let nature take its course, and the animals will continue to evolve. So why do we spend so much money treating the sick, searching for a cure for cancer, taking care of the mentally or physically disabled, etc.? Why not let natural selection do its job so mankind could continue evolving?

If we were to apply our standards for human society to the animal world, vegetarians would be the world's only moral citizens, and you'd have to throw every meat-eating person and animal in jail. How can we slaughter pigs, cows, chicken, fish, crabs, etc. for our food and still say it's wrong to kill another human being?

On the flip side, what if we applied our standards for nature towards humanity? If a male crocodile eating its own offspring isn't murder, then there's no such thing as murder at all. How can we call anything evil that exists in nature?

I'm looking forward to seeing some responses to these questions.

 

[Daniel25]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

When a wild animal is killed by another animal, or by sickness, or by any natural cause, what is our reaction? It's just natural selection, right? Let nature take its course, and the animals will continue to evolve. So why do we spend so much money treating the sick, searching for a cure for cancer, taking care of the mentally or physically disabled, etc.? Why not let natural selection do its job so mankind could continue evolving?

If we were to apply our standards for human society to the animal world, vegetarians would be the world's only moral citizens, and you'd have to throw every meat-eating person and animal in jail. How can we slaughter pigs, cows, chicken, fish, crabs, etc. for our food and still say it's wrong to kill another human being?

On the flip side, what if we applied our standards for nature towards humanity? If a male crocodile eating its own offspring isn't murder, then there's no such thing as murder at all. How can we call anything evil that exists in nature?

I'm looking forward to seeing some responses to these questions.

in order to have a double standard, you first need to have a single standard.

 

[GrayAngel]

in order to have a double standard, you first need to have a single standard.

I've listed two.

1. Standard for humanity. Killing of one's own species is considered murder. Taking what isn't yours is called stealing. Human life is worth preserving.

2. Standard for nature. Nothing is evil in nature. Death is just a way for natural selection to take its course, and the ones that survive grow to be stronger, smarter, better than the ones that die.

Or are you implying that our standard for humanity isn't unified? If this is the case, then I would agree with you, but I'm not sure what your intention is.

 

[variant]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

When a wild animal is killed by another animal, or by sickness, or by any natural cause, what is our reaction? It's just natural selection, right? Let nature take its course, and the animals will continue to evolve. So why do we spend so much money treating the sick, searching for a cure for cancer, taking care of the mentally or physically disabled, etc.? Why not let natural selection do its job so mankind could continue evolving?

If we were to apply our standards for human society to the animal world, vegetarians would be the world's only moral citizens, and you'd have to throw every meat-eating person and animal in jail. How can we slaughter pigs, cows, chicken, fish, crabs, etc. for our food and still say it's wrong to kill another human being?

On the flip side, what if we applied our standards for nature towards humanity? If a male crocodile eating its own offspring isn't murder, then there's no such thing as murder at all. How can we call anything evil that exists in nature?

I'm looking forward to seeing some responses to these questions.

The fact that you can think means that you can make decisions. Thus we are not required to apply the cold logic of evolution when we form our societies.

Thus, the facts of biological evolution do not require us to be social Darwinists, and there are plenty of good reasons we are not.

I can however, if you please construct an argument from within an evolutionary morality perspective to explain why humanity feels that human life is more important than that of the other animals.

 

[variant]

I've listed two.

1. Standard for humanity. Killing of one's own species is considered murder. Taking what isn't yours is called stealing. Human life is worth preserving.

2. Standard for nature. Nothing is evil in nature. Death is just a way for natural selection to take its course, and the ones that survive grow to be stronger, smarter, better than the ones that die.

Or are you implying that our standard for humanity isn't unified? If this is the case, then I would agree with you, but I'm not sure what your intention is.

Neither standard comes from evolutionary biology though so you have missed the point.

 

[GrayAngel]

The fact that you can think means that you can make decisions. Thus we are not required to apply the cold logic of evolution when we form our societies.

Thus, the facts of biological evolution do not require us to be social Darwinists, and there are plenty of good reasons we are not.

I can however, if you please construct an argument from within an evolutionary morality perspective to explain why humanity feels that human life is more important than that of the other animals.

Penguins can think. They can also choose to try to steal another penguin's baby if their own dies off.

How much thought do you need to be capable of until you can be held accountable for your actions?

How can we say that we are more important than the other animals? Isn't it a bit arrogant for one species to think themselves more valuable than another? Sure, we're smarter, but bears are stronger. We have thumbs, but dolphins have echo location.

 

[variant]

Penguins can think. They can also choose to try to steal another penguin's baby if their own dies off.

I am gong to need some sources.

How much thought do you need to be capable of until you can be held accountable for your actions?

That is actually a very good question. I really can't say for certain but to guess:

I think at the point where you can contemplate the effects of your actions on a broad social level you are safely at the level of awareness needed for accountability.

How can we say that we are more important than the other animals? Isn't it a bit arrogant for one species to think themselves more valuable than another? Sure, we're smarter, but bears are stronger. We have thumbs, but dolphins have echo location.

You can only say the opposite from a thinking perspective, because it would be natural for an animal to see it's own species, and thus genetic destiny as of primary importance. Arrogance isn't even possible from a non-thinking evolutionary perspective.

You can't have it both ways, the only reason we would ever think there is anything wrong with human primacy is because we can think about it in more objective terms than evolutionary logic, thus you have proven we are capable of making non-evolutionary judgments/morality.

We ARE capable of making decisions outside of the natural flow of biology, it is not a double standard, it is a freedom to decide for ourselves.

 

[variant]

The other thought just occurred to me that you're simply making a good argument for the superior consistency of the morality of vegetarianism.

Why would you find this so distasteful/unthinkable?

Why because of human primacy of course, which your religion has as a basic principle. It would also make sense that religions that enforce basic biological tenancies like human primacy, and that the basic gut tenancy is questionable indeed.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal.

Hey gray.

First of all, no that is nonsense.
The theory of evolution makes no statements about god, it is silent on such things, it merely explains the process. If you want to think god used that process to create us you can, it just wont be scientific or varifiable.

Now with that cleared up lets carry on to the meat of the question.

But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?
When a wild animal is killed by another animal, or by sickness, or by any natural cause, what is our reaction? It's just natural selection, right?

Alright.

Let nature take its course, and the animals will continue to evolve. So why do we spend so much money treating the sick, searching for a cure for cancer, taking care of the mentally or physically disabled, etc.?

Because we do not like to die, or see our loved ones die.

You see the same in nature actually when for example you see an aligator carry its young in its mouth and protect them from predators, why does the aligator not let its young fend for themselfs? Because by taking care of its young it is much more succesfull at passing on its genes, natural selection at work right there.

The aligator devised a strategy that allows it to be more succesful as a species then it would be otherwise. And the same principle applies to humans and our strategy of healing the sick and helping eachother, we are more succesful that way.

Why not let natural selection do its job so mankind could continue evolving?

In a sense it still is. Natural selection picks off whoever is less suited for their enviroment. It just so happens we have created a different enviroment, much like how the aligators jaws are a different enviroment.

It seems you are asking why do we work so hard on taking care of eachother and thus twarting natural selection. But that is not what happens, we change the enviroment that we have to adapt in to one where breaking a leg is not fatal. No different from changing the enviroment to one were the transport from nest to river is not fatal.

You might ask if our strategy is too good, there is barely anything now that would prevent you from being reasonably succesfull. Short of being born in africa and drawing a short straw.

If we were to apply our standards for human society to the animal world, vegetarians would be the world's only moral citizens, and you'd have to throw every meat-eating person and animal in jail. How can we slaughter pigs, cows, chicken, fish, crabs, etc. for our food and still say it's wrong to kill another human being?

Hang on a moment why just the animal kingdom? Lets go all the way and do this for the plant kingdom aswell. Now vegetarians are as bad as the rest of us and everybody is in jail.
All thats left to eat are bacteria, yay yogurt i guess. Though reallly by what measure did we exclude bacteria? its completely arbitrary at this point.

The question you are trying to ask is.. why do we consider it murder to kill our neighbour, but cooking if we kill and fry our pig.

Its simple, because I do not want to get killed and eaten, generally speaking nobody does but the creatures that are best capable of killing me are my fellow men. So I make a deal with the people around me, you dont kill&eat me and I dont do it to you. Its ultimately quite selfish but it gets the job done of keeping everybody safe from being killed&eaten by another human.

Also I have to eat, I cant eat other humans cause they will be angry but animals are free game since i never made that no killing&eating deal with them. Now maybe id like to make that deal with a lion, but lions are not very good communicators.

On the flip side, what if we applied our standards for nature towards humanity? If a male crocodile eating its own offspring isn't murder, then there's no such thing as murder at all. How can we call anything evil that exists in nature?

This is the naturalistic fallacy.

I'm looking forward to seeing some responses to these questions.

Ofcourse the modern world is alot more complicated but I had fun answering the way i did so hope you enjoy ^^

 

[Ken-1122]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

When a wild animal is killed by another animal, or by sickness, or by any natural cause, what is our reaction? It's just natural selection, right? Let nature take its course, and the animals will continue to evolve. So why do we spend so much money treating the sick, searching for a cure for cancer, taking care of the mentally or physically disabled, etc.? Why not let natural selection do its job so mankind could continue evolving?

If we were to apply our standards for human society to the animal world, vegetarians would be the world's only moral citizens, and you'd have to throw every meat-eating person and animal in jail. How can we slaughter pigs, cows, chicken, fish, crabs, etc. for our food and still say it's wrong to kill another human being?

On the flip side, what if we applied our standards for nature towards humanity? If a male crocodile eating its own offspring isn't murder, then there's no such thing as murder at all. How can we call anything evil that exists in nature?

I'm looking forward to seeing some responses to these questions.

First of all, humans are animals, but we are not beasts.
The reason we hold ourselves to a different standard than we do beasts is because we consider ourselves superior to beasts.

But then there are many beasts who hold themselves to a different standard than they do humans or other animals.

Ken

 

[bricklayer]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

When a wild animal is killed by another animal, or by sickness, or by any natural cause, what is our reaction? It's just natural selection, right? Let nature take its course, and the animals will continue to evolve. So why do we spend so much money treating the sick, searching for a cure for cancer, taking care of the mentally or physically disabled, etc.? Why not let natural selection do its job so mankind could continue evolving?

If we were to apply our standards for human society to the animal world, vegetarians would be the world's only moral citizens, and you'd have to throw every meat-eating person and animal in jail. How can we slaughter pigs, cows, chicken, fish, crabs, etc. for our food and still say it's wrong to kill another human being?

On the flip side, what if we applied our standards for nature towards humanity? If a male crocodile eating its own offspring isn't murder, then there's no such thing as murder at all. How can we call anything evil that exists in nature?

I'm looking forward to seeing some responses to these questions.

God has chosen to create the creation wherein all of creation becomes corrupted by sin.
(Sin- That which is contrary to God's nature)

Evolutionary Theory is man's attempt to describe the void in his perceptions.

We do retain, uniquely among animals, the ability to reason.
By "reason", I mean the ability to order ideas apart from their physical, spacial, or temporal existence.
(ontologically sequence intellectual perceptions)

The OP makes no distinction between killing and murder.
Murder is unjustified killing of one human by another human.

The unjustified killing of other than human animals, although sinful, is not murder.

 

[Kid A]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

When a wild animal is killed by another animal, or by sickness, or by any natural cause, what is our reaction? It's just natural selection, right? Let nature take its course, and the animals will continue to evolve. So why do we spend so much money treating the sick, searching for a cure for cancer, taking care of the mentally or physically disabled, etc.? Why not let natural selection do its job so mankind could continue evolving?

If we were to apply our standards for human society to the animal world, vegetarians would be the world's only moral citizens, and you'd have to throw every meat-eating person and animal in jail. How can we slaughter pigs, cows, chicken, fish, crabs, etc. for our food and still say it's wrong to kill another human being?

On the flip side, what if we applied our standards for nature towards humanity? If a male crocodile eating its own offspring isn't murder, then there's no such thing as murder at all. How can we call anything evil that exists in nature?

I'm looking forward to seeing some responses to these questions.

With the "birth", so to say, of Homo Sapiens came something revolutionary in life forms on this planet - the ability to reason, to create philosophy, and to objectively think and make decisions. We are beyond other animals.

Yes, evolution brought us here, but now that we are here we can use that tool to advance like never before - spiritually and physically. Just because we were formed through the process of natural selection does not mean that, now that we have reached this point, we should continue to let the weak die off.

 

[SithDoughnut]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

Because (1) we are intelligent enough to find alternative methods to issues than killing each other, and (2) we need rules like that for society to work.

You're probably right in saying that it's a double standard, but it's a necessary one and my main response to reading this OP is "OK, so what?" We are part of nature, but not all animals are alike, nor do they follow the same "standards" as each other. Some animals work together in packs or groups, other will attack and eat each other on sight. The dog does not judge itself by the rules of the spider, so are you complaining that dogs have a double standard?

We don't judge animals by our standards because they can't understand our standards. It would be stupid to suggest that either we should follow the standards of [insert animal here] or that they should be expected to act like humans. You're over-generalising the animal kingdom, and you're assuming that humans are the only unique animal. That is simply not true.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I'd going to whiteknight for GreyAngel

We are intelligent enough to find alternative methods to issues than killing each other.

Other animals such as dolphines and pigs are also highly intelligent, but we don't encourage them to find alternatives. As GreyAngel pointed out, how much thought do you need to be capable of until you can be held accountable for your actions? Being more intelligent doesn't mean being more moral.

I think at the point where you can contemplate the effects of your actions on a broad social level you are safely at the level of awareness needed for accountability.

In which case chimpanzees should be as accountable as humans. But of course no sensible person would put a chimp on trial if he killed a human (or another chimpanzee).

The question you are trying to ask is.. why do we consider it murder to kill our neighbour, but cooking if we kill and fry our pig.

Its simple, because I do not want to get killed and eaten, generally speaking nobody does but the creatures that are best capable of killing me are my fellow men. So I make a deal with the people around me, you dont kill&eat me and I dont do it to you. Its ultimately quite selfish but it gets the job done of keeping everybody safe from being killed&eaten by another human.

Probably not. Cannibalism was very common amoung humans. It's been practiced from prehistory right up to the 20th century.

Similarly we don't consider the death of a human 'murder' because we think we're special. It's only murder when a human kills another human, not when an animal does.

 

[SithDoughnut]

White knight? KILL IT WITH FIRE .

Other animals such as dolphines and pigs are also highly intelligent, but we don't encourage them to find alternatives. As GreyAngel pointed out, how much thought do you need to be capable of until you can be held accountable for your actions? Being more intelligent doesn't mean being more moral.

It doesn't mean that you have to be more moral (I contend that there is no such thing as "more moral" in fact), but it means that we have chosen to be more moral as a society. Why should we hold other animals up to this standard?

The problem with the OP is that morality is just a consensus, not a set of rules or some process that happens somewhere else. It's merely an agreement.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It doesn't mean that you have to be more moral (I contend that there is no such thing as "more moral" in fact), but it means that we have chosen to be more moral as a society. Why should we hold other animals up to this standard?

Humans aren't the only social animals. Theorectically, why shouldn't other intelligent social animals like pigs, dolphins and chimps* have morals too?

The problem with the OP is that morality is just a consensus, not a set of rules or some process that happens somewhere else. It's merely an agreement.

Not quite. Morality is about what we should do rather than what we can do. Evolution favours what is effective, whether it's killing your rivals or sharing with them. Both are good options. Humans however are expected to do what what is right, even when it's not the easiest or most effective option.


*Or even ants, bees and wasps for that matter - depending on your definition of 'intelligence'.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Humans aren't the only social animals. Theorectically, why shouldn't other intelligent social animals like pigs, dolphins and chimps* have morals too?

Maybe they do. I am under the impression that humans are the only animals with a brain developed enough to have the concept of morals, but it is possible that other animals do too.

Not quite. Morality is about what we should do rather than what we can do. Evolution favours what is effective, whether it's killing your rivals or sharing with them. Both are good options. Humans however are expected to do what what is right, even when it's not the easiest or most effective option.

And what it "right" is reached upon via consensus. Morals themselves are opinions that individuals hold, but the social consensus is what is generally referred to as "morality".

 

[variant]

In which case chimpanzees should be as accountable as humans. But of course no sensible person would put a chimp on trial if he killed a human (or another chimpanzee).

Chimpanzees are just about recognizing themselves in a mirror. A feat humans posses at about 18 months old.

I have my doubts as to the ability of chimpanzees to analyze broad social implications of their actions.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Probably not. Cannibalism was very common amoung humans. It's been practiced from prehistory right up to the 20th century.

I was more focused on the getting killed part. I dont actually mind the eating part, i'll be too dead to notice xD

Actually the more i think on it the less i see why cannibalism is considered wrong. Hm I wonder why we decided its wrong.

Similarly we don't consider the death of a human 'murder' because we think we're special. It's only murder when a human kills another human, not when an animal does.

I dont see what you are argueing? It seems like half the text is missing from this.

 

[quatona]

According to evolutionary theory, humans are not made in the image of God, but we are simply an advanced species of animal. But if that's true, then why do we hold different standards for "nature" than we do for humanity?

Because, as you said, humans tend to consider themselves an advanced species.