Double Standards of Secular Morality

[GrayAngel]

I'm a little busy with school work and stuff, but I'll drop in to leave one question for you. I'll try to catch up later in the week.

So we've created rules for society because of the mutual benefits of law and order? This is true. It is convenient for me if I can make an agreement with others not to kill, steal, or otherwise violate one another. My problem with this explanation, though, is this: where does good and evil come into the picture? It's generally accepted that murder is evil. Why? Is it because of our agreement (the law) not to murder that it is considered evil? Or is it evil by its own right? If it is the latter, what is it that makes murder evil, considering other creatures exist who lack these societal laws?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

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.

If other animals did have some concept of morality, is it possible for an animal to be evil? A human who commits infanticide would be sent to jail, but that practice is quite common among dolphins and chimps. But who is daft enough to imprison an animal?

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".

Even when we cannot agree on what is right or wrong, we agree that being moral is about what we should do, rather than what we can do. It would probably be much cheaper and easier to build monuments using slaves rather than paid workers, but most civilised people consider slavery wrong.

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

They can in their own society. They know what they do has an effect on the other chimps in their troop (they're remarkably manipulative). Indeed many social animals can do this.

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

Most people kill their victims before they cannibalise them. Hopefully. Besides, the fact that they're dead doesn't mean anything. If it did then murder wouldn't be illegal - after all, dead people cannot suffer.

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

"Why is it murder when we kill a human but now when we kill an animal?" Most people argue that this is because we arrogantly consider human lives more important than the lives other animals (although that wasn't what you said).

I don't think that's so. After all, it's only murder when a human kills another humans. Animals can't commit murder.

I'm a little busy with school work and stuff, but I'll drop in to leave one question for you. I'll try to catch up later in the week.

I shall happily butt in and take your place.
You're welcome.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

My problem with this explanation, though, is this: where does good and evil come into the picture? It's generally accepted that murder is evil. Why? Is it because of our agreement (the law) not to murder that it is considered evil? Or is it evil by its own right? If it is the latter, what is it that makes murder evil, considering other creatures exist who lack these societal laws?

Perhaps part of the reason it's difficult to explain morality using evolution is that we focus on 21st century morality. For much of history killing another human was not a big deal. For example:

• The Celts would collect and preserve the heads of their slain enemies. It's said they wouldn't part for them even when offered there weight in gold.
• In Saxon Britain the penalty for murder - the deliberate and unlawful killing of another human being - was a fine. To put that in perspective, the penalty for spreading nasty rumours was to have your tongue cut out.
• The Aztecs sacrificed people every day by tearing their hearts out while they were still alive. Some estimate that as many as 50,000 people a year died this way (although most of them were from conquered tribes). On special occasions they would flay their victims and wear the skin like a cape for 20 days.
• The Incans practiced child sacrifice by getting them drunk and leading them up the mountains, where they froze to death. Some did not go willingly and suffered violent deaths.
• The Romans are notorious for watching criminals, prisoners of war and slaves fight to the death or throwing them to wild animals in the colosseum.
• In ancient Egypt, when the pharaoh died all his servants were executed so that they may serve him in the next life. It's not clear whether they died willingly.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If other animals did have some concept of morality, is it possible for an animal to be evil? A human who commits infanticide would be sent to jail, but that practice is quite common among dolphins and chimps. But who is daft enough to imprison an animal?

If we want to judge animals by our standards, then yes. We don't have to put an animal through our justice system in order to consider its acts to be wrong.

Even when we cannot agree on what is right or wrong, we agree that being moral is about what we should do, rather than what we can do. It would probably be much cheaper and easier to build monuments using slaves rather than paid workers, but most civilised people consider slavery wrong.

Yes, morals are a society's consensus on an idealised form of behaviour.

 

[variant]

They can in their own society. They know what they do has an effect on the other chimps in their troop (they're remarkably manipulative). Indeed many social animals can do this.

I know, I just don't know that they can analyze the desisions they make.

 

[variant]

So we've created rules for society because of the mutual benefits of law and order? This is true. It is convenient for me if I can make an agreement with others not to kill, steal, or otherwise violate one another. My problem with this explanation, though, is this: where does good and evil come into the picture? It's generally accepted that murder is evil. Why? Is it because of our agreement (the law) not to murder that it is considered evil? Or is it evil by its own right? If it is the latter, what is it that makes murder evil, considering other creatures exist who lack these societal laws?

Murder is "evil" because it breaks down a functioning society.

Evil is a social construct trying to describe the realities we live in.

Social concepts are trying to describe reality, and EVIL is a theory on why certian poor actions are poor.

Religions are one way of relateing social concepts to one another simply and easily, and an attempt to get people to buy in.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Originally Posted by Exiledoomsayer

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

Most people kill their victims before they cannibalise them. Hopefully. Besides, the fact that they're dead doesn't mean anything. If it did then murder wouldn't be illegal - after all, dead people cannot suffer.

Generally speaking through, we are talking about enemies being killed and eaten. So not people from ones own 'tribe' which is something else entirely. We dont consider soldiers killing eachother murder either.

Ofcourse there were cultures were it was perfectly normal to eat people of their own tribe who died of natural causes, but that did not involve actually killing ones own people.

Originally Posted by Exiledoomsayer

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

"Why is it murder when we kill a human but now when we kill an animal?" Most people argue that this is because we arrogantly consider human lives more important than the lives other animals (although that wasn't what you said).

I don't think that's so. After all, it's only murder when a human kills another humans. Animals can't commit murder.

Ah alright I see what was going on then.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Murder is "evil" because it breaks down a functioning society.

Generally speaking through, we are talking about enemies being killed and eaten. So not people from ones own 'tribe' which is something else entirely. We dont consider soldiers killing eachother murder either.

By modern standards perhaps, but throughout history there wasn't too much fuss about intentionally killing people (even ones from our own tribe or class).

I know, I just don't know that they can analyze the desisions they make.

They can, but again only within their own society. Indeed chimps are such intelligent and political animals that their behaviour is often used to explain the evolutionary origins of our own behaviour.

If we want to judge animals by our standards, then yes. We don't have to put an animal through our justice system in order to consider its acts to be wrong.

The more we study animals, not only do we see them act in ways we once thought were unique to humans - often they do it for the same reasons we do too. Dolphins are one of the few creatures which kill for fun.

So to ask a silly question ... why is murder wrong when a human does it, not not when a dolphin does?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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?

We don't. We are "nature".

[snip] 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.? [snip]

^^^ And that is the way this part of "nature" does things.

 

[variant]

By modern standards perhaps, but throughout history there wasn't too much fuss about intentionally killing people (even ones from our own tribe or class).

Yes, and there is a reason where at a sufficient level of complexity a society no longer tolerates it.

Or, are you actually going to argue with me that the success of systems like Christianity are not due to their allowance for more functional and complex societies?

 

[Redac]

So we've created rules for society because of the mutual benefits of law and order? This is true. It is convenient for me if I can make an agreement with others not to kill, steal, or otherwise violate one another. My problem with this explanation, though, is this: where does good and evil come into the picture? It's generally accepted that murder is evil. Why? Is it because of our agreement (the law) not to murder that it is considered evil? Or is it evil by its own right? If it is the latter, what is it that makes murder evil, considering other creatures exist who lack these societal laws?

That which is considered evil has changed considerably over the years. Something is generally considered "evil" when it's a detriment to society as a whole. It's just something that we contrived in response to our environment.

"Evil" does not exist outside of the minds of humans (at least until chimps start thinking about it ).

 

[quatona]

I'm a little busy with school work and stuff, but I'll drop in to leave one question for you. I'll try to catch up later in the week.

So we've created rules for society because of the mutual benefits of law and order? This is true. It is convenient for me if I can make an agreement with others not to kill, steal, or otherwise violate one another. My problem with this explanation, though, is this: where does good and evil come into the picture? It's generally accepted that murder is evil. Why? Is it because of our agreement (the law) not to murder that it is considered evil? Or is it evil by its own right? If it is the latter, what is it that makes murder evil, considering other creatures exist who lack these societal laws?

Well, in a very simplified description: we think things through and try to find out what the results and consequences of a certain behaviour/action are. If we find them desirable we call the action good, if we find them undesirable we call it bad.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Human beings are not "just" an advanced species of animal. Human beings are human beings. Yes, we are a type of animal. You could say that we are advanced in certain ways, such as intelligence and a sense of self. Most importantly, we are human beings living human lives with a human perspective. Our humanness has implications for what standard to use in selecting our values.

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?

No, that is not my reaction. I do wonder if it was painful for the animal. I can feel sorry for animals. I personally think it is unfortunate that the ecosystem works in that way, but there's nothing to be done about it now. What possible solution could there be?

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

Because there's no reason why we should do that. Consider also that we have veterinarians to treat domesticated animals such as pets.

We are human beings pursuing human goods, such as health. We have human standards of well-being to work towards. We value human lives in a special way because we are social beings, and in particular are social with other human beings. Our empathy easily extends to them, though it even extends to other animals who we become attached to.

Just because we may treat certain animals species differently than ourselves, that doesn't mean that we hold a "double standard". We hold a single standard -- that of human interests. We relate to human beings, and certain other animals species, differently than we do others, but it's all the same standard.

Personally, I am concerned about the genetic future of humanity. However, my solution would not be some sort of social darwinism. We are getting to the point where direct genetic intervention using technology may be very useful.

I'm not at all certain that medical care has meant that human beings will degenerate physically. There are still evolutionary pressures on human beings, at least in terms of mate selection. In any case, this is an interesting article:

Still evolving after all these years: Human beings - The New York Times


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

So to ask a silly question ... why is murder wrong when a human does it, not not when a dolphin does?

Your comparison does not work. Humans hunt for fun too, and it is accepted in many societies. Neither dolphin hunts nor human hunts are classified as murder.

 

[quatona]

So to ask a silly question ... why is murder wrong when a human does it, not not when a dolphin does?

I´m just trying to imagine a court trial against a dolphin, and I end up agreeing with you: Yes, it´s a silly question.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Your comparison does not work. Humans hunt for fun too, and it is accepted in many societies. Neither dolphin hunts nor human hunts are classified as murder.

Not hunting - murder (or at least what would be considered murder by human standards). Dolphins are one of the few creatures which kill for fun, rather than because they are hunting for food or fighting off rival dolphins.

One of the more controversial arguments in biology is that acts of genocide, rape, murder etc. are the result of evolution rather than some unique form of human evil, because animals often do "bad" things for the same reasons humans do. But if that's so, why do only humans consider it wrong?

Yes, and there is a reason where at a sufficient level of complexity a society no longer tolerates it.

Or, are you actually going to argue with me that the success of systems like Christianity are not due to their allowance for more functional and complex societies?

Sorry to answer your question with another question, but what do you mean by "complexity"? More laws, more people, better technology?

"Evil" does not exist outside of the minds of humans (at least until chimps start thinking about it ).

This is probably because no animals other than human beings are capable of being evil.

 

[Redac]

This is probably because no animals other than human beings are capable of being evil.

It's because no other animals besides human beings are capable of conceiving of the concept of evil. Nothing is evil until we deem it as such.

 

[GrayAngel]

It's because no other animals besides human beings are capable of conceiving of the concept of evil. Nothing is evil until we deem it as such.

You mean humans have Knowledge of Good and Evil?

*Poofs*

 

[Redac]

You mean humans have Knowledge of Good and Evil?

*Poofs*

Not quite. That phrase implies the existence of some objective "Good and Evil" that we have some sort of connection to.

If you want to call it that, though, sure.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You mean humans have Knowledge of Good and Evil?

*Poofs*

More like, humans decide what is good and evil.