• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Double Standards of Secular Morality

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
So - the Aztecs were successful because they were so vicious. But this same viciousness made them hated, and lead to their downfall in the end. Does this prove (or disprove) the idea that more advanced societies are more 'moral'?

The Aztecs only prove that brutality can make a stable empire. They also prove that eventually it doesn't work out so well.

Take the example of the Assyrian empire, which collapsed under it's own brutal weight over centuries of invasions and uprisings.

This is a mistake. Monotheism is not part of the "normal" pregression of society for two reasons:

a) All of the monotheistic religions (with one possible exception) are related. If they were part of the normal progression of society we would expect monotheism to be established independantly again and again - this isn't the case. They all have one common origin.

Why is that? All we need to know is that once it was established it dominated globally.

b) Before the introduction of Christianity in the 14th entury, the Far East - despite their great civilisations - showed no signs of monotheism. Their beliefs are a form of pantheism.

And what happened to them from the 14th century to the present?

We think society becoming monotheistic is the norm because belief in one God is so common. But in reality it's actually quite an unusual belief.

I am saying that monotheism has a pretty good track record for replacing polytheism. Much in the same way that I could observe that maple replaces tulip poplar in forest progression.

Unusual how?

Ch15Slide1.gif



It's rather OK if people here don't want to admit that some beliefs galvanize society for things like conquest, exploration and economic advancement and others do not. I just want to know where they think these social changes come from.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Yeah, but they're not overtaken because they're cannibals. They're overtaken due to a large technological gap.

The technological gap comes from somewhere.

Japanese culture is not at all saturated with monotheism, but I'd say they've been fairly successful. Shinto (and all its mixtures with Buddhism by now) is not exactly simple, either. I guess it depends on where you set the bar.

It depends on how well their society organizes. I am saying monotheism organizes a society better in general.

Japan was thrust from the feudal era into the industrial age rather quickly by some monotheists. They did a good job at assimilating it and even advancement it where many other cultures did not.

As for the cannibalism, well, the Aztecs practiced some ritual cannibalism during human sacrifice. It wasn't a huge part of anyone's diet, but it was there. As for how good its track record would have been as the centuries wore on, we we'll never know. It wasn't exactly detrimental up till that point, though.

Yes but we find exactly no advanced civilizations of today that practice it so I am going to put forward the idea that it is not favored to social organization and complexity at a certain level.

Right around the rise of Christianity, interestingly enough. Though the Eastern Empire managed to make it a lot further, the Western Empire spend a little less than 200 years Christian before collapse.

Indeed. And it can be successfully argued that the Roman Empire did a lot more for Christianity than vise versa. The Roman Empire was not well designed for being a Christian nation.

With technology taken from a bunch of Chinese pagans.

What were the Chinese doing with it?

Not quite. The Spaniards had a few things going for them, and certainly did NOT conquer the Aztecs on their own.

First, they didn't do it on their own. They went around and stirred up anger amongst other tribes and cities in the region. They went about manipulating the Aztec's enemies into various alliances and used all those different alliances to their advantage. Just from memory, I want to say the biggest contributor here was Tlaxcala. There would have been massive armies of natives marching with the Spanish.

Whipping up those tribes was easier because of the immense hatred of the Aztecs.

Second, disease. Cortes arrived in Mexico in 1519, but didn't actually lay siege to the capital until 1521. By the time Cortes waltzed on into Tenochtitlan, most of the city, and indeed much of the countryside, had been ravaged by smallpox and the starvation that followed.

That is just regular evolution right there. Eons of isolation from the centers of civilization.

Diseases like smallpox are a byproduct of cities and trade though so it's not a point in your favor. If the Americas had been trading with China for centuries the diseases wouldn't have been an issue.

Then of course there was the almost perfect timing of the landing, which coincided with when they were expecting the return of a Quetzalcoatl from the east. That threw them off for a little while before they figured out that these were just more men.

Being "unlucky" that backwards religious practices helped their enemy dosen't help your point.

Finally, the hierarchy of the empire itself lent to the Spanish stepping in and replacing the guys at the top and largely letting business continue as usual.

Had the Spanish not walked into a sort of perfect storm of circumstances, the Aztecs would have thrown them back into the sea.

You mean if the Spanish hadn't had guns and boats based upon technological advancement, introduced new diseases that come from trade and cities, rallied a force of natives against each other because of their hatred for Aztec brutality, and took advantage of religions that might consider an invading army as Gods.

Then they would have had the gumption to throw them into the sea? :D

Only when some outside group takes it upon themselves to come along and "liberate" you.

Yes.... Other people ARE the primary problem in society you know.

A more complex society requires a more complex set of ethics to operate effectively. The Aztec Empire was fairly large and complex; the capital city of Tenochtitlan was easily larger than just about every city in Europe. Their morality did not stop them from becoming complex, and their morality was not the cause of their downfall.

You're just saying the word complex where as I am making use of it.

The advantages of the European continent are interconnectedness and continuous competition. They invented arms with technology borrowed from their trading partners. They invented ships to sail around the world. They crushed the Aztecs because of these advantages and would have regardless of the circumstances.

Having a big or fancy city doesn't make your society more complex. The Aztecs were pretty good at dominating an area of similarly advanced civilizations but not at all capable of dealing with even a small influx of foreign invasion from a more advanced civilization.
 
Upvote 0

Nooj

Senior Veteran
Jan 9, 2005
3,229
156
Sydney
✟26,715.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
AU-Greens
I've noticed most of the people who argue that "Morality is what is legal / what society believes is right" are atheists. This seems odd to me ... most atheists I've met value free-thinking above mindless conformity. Most of us also seem to agree that how successful a society is has little to do with morality and more to do with organization.

Theoretically then, wouldn't we be better off just following what the church or government says is right? It would be moral (since morality is based on law and compliance) and society runs more smoothly if when we try not to think for ourselves. :p
My definition of morality is simply the customs, traditions, laws, preferences, personal beliefs, habits and so forth that influences how one acts.

Of course I believe that society can determine morality in a significant way. But does that make society moral? In a banal sense, yes. Moral to morality is like Cubist to Cubism. If I call an artwork Cubist, I'm saying it's related to Cubism. And if I call human sacrifice moral, I'm saying it's related to Aztec morality.

But lets say we're using the other definition of moral i.e. what it is right to do. If someone asks whether it is right to follow the Church or not, then the answer is yes and no. Yes, because many millions do believe the Catholic Church is right. It is right for them. But also no, because many people determine that the Church isn't right for them.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nooj

Senior Veteran
Jan 9, 2005
3,229
156
Sydney
✟26,715.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
AU-Greens
I am saying that monotheism has a pretty good track record for replacing polytheism. Much in the same way that I could observe that maple replaces tulip poplar in forest progression.
My view is that monotheism was like a parasite, hopping a ride on more influential factors like greater technology and bigger empires. Why do they have bigger empires? Many reasons, but not because of their monotheism. I can't find any connection between the development of guns and believing in the truth of Christianity. But I can clearly see the connection between guns and spreading Christianity to foreign lands.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
My view is that monotheism was like a parasite, hopping a ride on more influential factors like greater technology and bigger empires. Why do they have bigger empires? Many reasons, but not because of their monotheism. I can't find any connection between the development of guns and believing in the truth of Christianity. But I can clearly see the connection between guns and spreading Christianity to foreign lands.

You think monotheism was incidental to the rise of the Islamic empires for instance?

I actually see a direct connection between post Roman Christianity the reformation (and the wars that it entailed) and the development of firearms. It had to do with the printing press for the distribution of protestant Bibles. Around the time of printed books you get a fantastic step forward in technology

The reformation and enlightenment had a lot to do with the development of firearms and ship building/trade and the want to spread Christianity along with capitol motives caused the impulse for exploration.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
I've noticed most of the people who argue that "Morality is what is legal / what society believes is right" are atheists. This seems odd to me ... most atheists I've met value free-thinking above mindless conformity.
What´s odd about that? How exactly does saying that morality is a legal/societal issue necessitate me to agree/conform with it? I certainly don´t, in many cases.

Most of us also seem to agree that how successful a society is has little to do with morality and more to do with organization.
Depending on how you define "successful", I may or may not agree with that statement.

Theoretically then, wouldn't we be better off just following what the church or government says is right? It would be moral (since morality is based on law and compliance) and society runs more smoothly if when we try not to think for ourselves. :p
I understand how that might make sense to a person whose main priority is the "smooth running of society".
 
Upvote 0

Redac

Regular Member
Jul 16, 2007
4,342
945
California
✟182,909.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
The technological gap comes from somewhere.


It depends on how well their society organizes. I am saying monotheism organizes a society better in general.
What is your definition of "organize" here?

Japan was thrust from the feudal era into the industrial age rather quickly by some monotheists.
Their monotheism had exactly nothing to do with it. It's more accurate to say it was brought by industrialists who happened to be monotheists.

They did a good job at assimilating it and even advancement it where many other cultures did not.
They assimilated the technology and some Western practices, not the monotheism.


Yes but we find exactly no advanced civilizations of today that practice it so I am going to put forward the idea that it is not favored to social organization and complexity at a certain level.
It was stamped out by those who took it upon themselves to enforce their particular brand of morality. As for whether it's viable beyond a certain point, we really can't say. There hasn't been a large, industrial society that once practiced it but gave it up at some point. Had the Aztecs survived till this day, we'd be able to see.



What were the Chinese doing with it?
Creating bombs, cannons, and other firearms.


Whipping up those tribes was easier because of the immense hatred of the Aztecs.
Every empire has enemies. This is not unique to the Aztecs.


That is just regular evolution right there. Eons of isolation from the centers of civilization.
Labeling Europe as the "center of civilization" is rather ethnocentric, don't you think? There had been several civilizations that flourished in the Americas, and they were only "isolated" in that they didn't have contact with Europe.

Diseases like smallpox are a byproduct of cities and trade though so it's not a point in your favor.
Smallpox probably originated with agriculture about 10,000 years ago. The first documented case comes from an Egyptian mummy. Trade and dense cities only made it easier for all these diseases to spread easier.

Also, the disease trade flows both ways. Syphilis was brought to Europe by those morally superior Europeans.

If the Americas had been trading with China for centuries the diseases wouldn't have been an issue.
Yeah, it's their fault that they were much healthier than Europeans. :doh:


Being "unlucky" that backwards religious practices helped their enemy dosen't help your point.
Once again, your ethnocentrism shines through. Christians waiting for the return of their God is no more or less "backwards" than the Aztecs awaiting the return of one of theirs.


You mean if the Spanish hadn't had guns and boats based upon technological advancement, introduced new diseases that come from trade and cities, rallied a force of natives against each other because of their hatred for Aztec brutality, and took advantage of religions that might consider an invading army as Gods.
You mean if the Spanish hadn't used technology developed by non-monotheistic cultures, lived in generally unhealthy conditions, exploited enemies of the guy in charge, and generally connived their way into power?

Then they would have had the gumption to throw them into the sea? :D
The Aztecs were skilled warriors, and they vastly outnumbered the Spanish. :wave:

You're just saying the word complex where as I am making use of it.

The advantages of the European continent are interconnectedness and continuous competition.
Just facts of geography.

They invented arms with technology borrowed from their trading partners.
I've highlighted the key words here. They did not invent firearms.

They invented ships to sail around the world.
They weren't the first sea-faring people.

They crushed the Aztecs because of these advantages and would have regardless of the circumstances.
Wrong. In fact, I'd wager that disease was the single biggest factor in the conquest of the Aztecs. Had their numbers not declined so rapidly, the Spanish would have gone nowhere fast.

Having a big or fancy city doesn't make your society more complex. The Aztecs were pretty good at dominating an area of similarly advanced civilizations but not at all capable of dealing with even a small influx of foreign invasion from a more advanced civilization.
Again, they would have handled it just fine but for a few mitigating circumstances (mainly disease).
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What is your definition of "organize" here?

organize - definition of organize by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Their monotheism had exactly nothing to do with it. It's more accurate to say it was brought by industrialists who happened to be monotheists.

Right, the industrial revolution just "happened" it had nothing to do with the societies that it happened in.

They assimilated the technology and some Western practices, not the monotheism.

And they are but one example, there are only a few. Japan, China and India each needing exceedingly long traditional histories to overcome their lack of theological innovation (of course Buddhism does count).

It was stamped out by those who took it upon themselves to enforce their particular brand of morality. As for whether it's viable beyond a certain point, we really can't say. There hasn't been a large, industrial society that once practiced it but gave it up at some point. Had the Aztecs survived till this day, we'd be able to see.

Stamped out societies are not viable.

We certainly can say that the Aztecs were backward or else they might have been conquering Spain at the time.

Creating bombs, cannons, and other firearms.

Any of these?

FR4055.JPG


Every empire has enemies. This is not unique to the Aztecs.

Right, I am sure that if someone came to help Carthage take over Rome with cannons and tanks they would have won too.

But then YOU would argue that Rome wasn't backwards and poorly organized compared to these invaders that just stamped it out. ;)

Labeling Europe as the "center of civilization" is rather ethnocentric, don't you think? There had been several civilizations that flourished in the Americas, and they were only "isolated" in that they didn't have contact with Europe.

Europe, Asia, or Africa to be exact. I consider them the cradle of advanced civilization because it happens to be entirely true.

Smallpox probably originated with agriculture about 10,000 years ago. The first documented case comes from an Egyptian mummy. Trade and dense cities only made it easier for all these diseases to spread easier.

Yes but that is MY point.

Disease is a sign of civilization. Interconnectedness trade and the exchange of ideas makes a society more complex.

Also, the disease trade flows both ways. Syphilis was brought to Europe by those morally superior Europeans.

Yep and yet they weren't wiped out for some reason....

How long do you think it would have taken for the Aztecs to conquer Spain?

Yeah, it's their fault that they were much healthier than Europeans. :doh:

It's their "fault" that they hadn't explored the world to the extent of the Spanish. :srug:

Once again, your ethnocentrism shines through. Christians waiting for the return of their God is no more or less "backwards" than the Aztecs awaiting the return of one of theirs.

You are missing the point. If someone was advanced enough to convince the Christians that they were God and take them over and wipe them out, then whoever did that would by default be more advanced.

You mean if the Spanish hadn't used technology developed by non-monotheistic cultures, lived in generally unhealthy conditions, exploited enemies of the guy in charge, and generally connived their way into power?

Muskets, cannons and ships were perfected in Europe. How you use things is more important than who invents them if you're talking about social organization.

The Aztecs were skilled warriors, and they vastly outnumbered the Spanish. :wave:

And you speculate that a more advanced civilization wasn't going to break up a weaker and more backward one.

Shows what you know about history.

Just facts of geography.

That made the Aztecs both socially and technologically backward.

I've highlighted the key words here. They did not invent firearms.

They weren't the first sea-faring people.

First ones to find and make use of America.

They did indeed build ships capable of Atlantic passage.

Wrong. In fact, I'd wager that disease was the single biggest factor in the conquest of the Aztecs. Had their numbers not declined so rapidly, the Spanish would have gone nowhere fast.

Sure whatever. That worked out really well for the Africans in the next few centuries.

Again, they would have handled it just fine but for a few mitigating circumstances (mainly disease).

Bla bla bla, arguing in hypothetical where you feel you win, I suppose you could make up any scenario.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I've noticed most of the people who argue that "Morality is what is legal / what society believes is right" are atheists. This seems odd to me ... most atheists I've met value free-thinking above mindless conformity.
I guess they're also a bunch of mindless conformists because they believe gravity is real. Looking at society and seeing that morality is a very fluid concept is kind of like seeing that things fall - it's a fact, not some sort of religious faith.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
I've noticed most of the people who argue that "Morality is what is legal / what society believes is right" are atheists. This seems odd to me ... most atheists I've met value free-thinking above mindless conformity.

I don't think I've ever seen an atheist advocate "morality is what is legal" before.

However, I have seen "what society believes is right", and it has nothing to do with mindless conformity. It's based on a descriptive (rather than prescriptive) view of morality as a set of behaviors that come from some combination of nature and nurture. When you start talking about prescriptive oughts, you are likely to find far more opposition to popular moral views.

Most of us also seem to agree that how successful a society is has little to do with morality and more to do with organization.

I'd say that it's both, and roughly equally, since both issues are intertwined.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
37
✟27,024.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Variant said:
I am saying that monotheism has a pretty good track record for replacing polytheism. Much in the same way that I could observe that maple replaces tulip poplar in forest progression.
Nooj said:
My view is that monotheism was like a parasite, hopping a ride on more influential factors like greater technology and bigger empires. Why do they have bigger empires? Many reasons, but not because of their monotheism. I can't find any connection between the development of guns and believing in the truth of Christianity. But I can clearly see the connection between guns and spreading Christianity to foreign lands.
Monotheism is certainly successful, but it was not necessarily part of the 'normal' progression of society. Nor was it successful because of warfare (especially when we consider it's only about 3,500 years old) - almost all idealologies have been spread through war at some point. But that's another topic.

Variant said:
We certainly can say that the Aztecs were backward or else they might have been conquering Spain at the time.
Keep in mind when we think that better morality leads to a better society, we assume that less advanced societies were conquered because they were 'bad' and the invaders were 'good'. We the Romans morally superior to the Celts, or the British more moral than Indians? Probably not.

----------------------------------
Back to OP:

Quatona said:
notedstrangeperson said:
I've noticed most of the people who argue that "Morality is what is legal / what society believes is right" are atheists. This seems odd to me ... most atheists I've met value free-thinking above mindless conformity.
What´s odd about that? How exactly does saying that morality is a legal/societal issue necessitate me to agree/conform with it? I certainly don´t, in many cases.

Why do humans have morality but animals don't? When a lion kills baby cubs it's natural selection - but when a man kill his stepchildren it's wrong.

Some have argued that morality is an evolved trait which helps us to be more organised and live better lives. Others have pointed out that plenty of brutal and barbaric societies survived for hundreds of years. Their immorality didn't lead to their downfall. We're partly correct when we say morality is based on what society considers right - fights rarely break out when we all agree on something.

But simply agreeing that something is acceptable does not make it moral: in ancient Greece paedophilia was acceptable. Almost all empires considered slavery acceptable. In Rome watching people being eaten alive for our entertainment was acceptable. In Mesoamerica child sacrifice was acceptable and so on and so on. Their civilisations lasted for centuries, but I doubt many of us would say that these practices were 'moral' just because everyone thought they were - therefore what is right is more than just what society agrees on.

GreyAngel noted that animals don't have morality, but humans do. Why? It seems societies flourish when they are well-organised, rather than how moral they are.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Why do humans have morality but animals don't?
Because they have the capability of abstract thinking. You may call it "advanced" or not - but that doesn´t affect the fact that the human brain is somewhat unique in comparison to other animals.
When a lion kills baby cubs it's natural selection - but when a man kill his stepchildren it's wrong.
Here you seem to be asking an entirely different question: "Why do we apply moral judgements to humans but not to other animals?"
The answer:
When a bird flies that´s natural, when a lion flies that´s utterly remarkable.
We are trying to evaluate the behaviour of different animals according to their capabilities. Lions (as far as I can tell) have no abstract thinking and hence no capability for moral considerations - therefore we don´t apply moral judgements on their behaviour.

Some have argued that morality is an evolved trait which helps us to be more organised and live better lives. Others have pointed out that plenty of brutal and barbaric societies survived for hundreds of years. Their immorality didn't lead to their downfall. We're partly correct when we say morality is based on what society considers right - fights rarely break out when we all agree on something.
I´m by no means an expert in natural science, but as far as I know such evolutionary results can´t be expected to take place within decades or centuries. Besides, evolution is not about the success or downfall of certain nations.

But the main point is: I still don´t seem to fully understand your question.
Initially I was under the impression that you meant to ask: "Why do humans engage in moral considerations?" but this last paragraph seems to suggest that your question actually is "Why do humans behave morally (when applying your particular set of morals) and not completely immoral?".

But simply agreeing that something is acceptable does not make it moral: in ancient Greece paedophilia was acceptable. Almost all empires considered slavery acceptable. In Rome watching people being eaten alive for our entertainment was acceptable. In Mesoamerica child sacrifice was acceptable and so on and so on. Their civilisations lasted for centuries, but I doubt many of us would say that these practices were 'moral' just because everyone thought they were - therefore what is right is more than just what society agrees on.
Now, are you asking "What is the evolutionary reason that moral ideas have undergone the changes they have undergone"?

Sorry, but I really still don´t understand what problem you are trying to point out. You seem to be confusing and conflating a lot of different issues.

Maybe you can clarify?

GreyAngel
noted that animals don't have morality, but humans do. Why?
There´s a difference between "having morality (A)" (as in: having a morality I agree with) and "having morality(B)" (as in: engaging in moral considerations - no matter what the result).
It seems societies flourish when they are well-organised, rather than how moral they are.
Are you trying to say that your particular set of morals has no positive (or even a negative) societal effect? That would be odd.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
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.

What´s wrong about having different standards for different beings with different capabilities?
What would be the point in judging a being morally when the being itself isn´t capable of moral considerations? Why would you expect a single standard, in the first place? Would that standard have to be applied to vegetables ("a toxic plant is immoral"), rocks ("a brick falling and hitting another rock is immoral"), natural disaster etc.etc., too?

----

On another note, I wasn´t aware that Christian morality had a single standard when it comes to humans and other animals. What the heck is the point of this thread? :confused:
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,372
114
USA
✟28,792.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Isn't that usually what someone is called when they hold their own species as being superior? Like, a "racist" is not someone who thinks that all races are equal.

Correct. The word takes into account that all animals are sentient beings, and it makes the assumption that this makes discrimination of the species immoral. Animals--cattle or pets--have always been treated as property, but some might say that non-human animals are deserving of rights.

The problem here is that people tend to equate evolutionary success with other types of success. If you can create fertile, viable offspring, and they can in turn manage to create offspring of their own, you are an evolutionary success by definition.

But if success is the result of some form of above average trait, then wouldn't it be bad for us to have those at the lower rung populating faster than those at the top?

Even middle-class couples are starting to have fewer children, or even no children at all.

I know this isn't directed toward me, but I felt like chiming in. Murder is, by definition, illegal. Society is what deems something to be illegal, so yes, society is what says that murder is wrong.

As for the intrinsic "evil" of it, I can't speak for Exiledoomsayer, but I'd say that there is no intrinsic evil in it. That does not make it acceptable; it only means I see no evil in it in-and-of-itself. The fact that murder is generally detrimental to society is one of the main reasons that societies discourage it.

I've had many discussions with atheists who were very enthusiastic about their belief of intrinsic evils. They'll often point back to the Old Testament and claim that God encouraged these intrinsically immoral acts. Would you disagree?

Well, the argument I'd put forth is that we can make up for physical shortcomings with our intelligence. We can create machines that are faster and stronger than any animal; we can create airplanes and sonar (echolocation); we can even domesticate these animals and use them for things we can't do.

I'm not entirely sure I buy any of that as making us intrinsically "better" than anything else, though.

Good point.

Murder is not wrong, murder is illegal.

However, there are a number of qualifications.

If your definition of wrong is illegality, then murder is wrong and so is driving on the wrong side of the road and drinking before the minimum age.

The way I consider wrong is 'something I would not do'. So murder is wrong to me in that sense of the word, but other people seem to use wrong in another sense, that it is a moral judgement that exists apart from the human perspective. I don't agree with that though.

Most people would say that murder is evil, but they wouldn't make a moral judgement about which side of the road to drive on. There are some things that are considered social norms, which are practiced for convenience but have no moral value. Are you saying that not murdering is also a social norm, apart from morality? Or is it evil to break any social norms?

Well some species actually have a reproductive strategy where they maximise their attention on only a few offspring. That seems to work for us. In desperate times, we have many children to offset the real risk of them dying. In good times, we have fewer children. This seems to be a good evolutionary strategy.

Interesting to note though, what makes the successful people successful? According to our social standards, lots of money, a good education, a big house, lots of food, happiness and so forth. But evolutionarily, the successful people are people who pass on their genes. And so you can a successful multi-billionaire, but if you don't have kids, you're a miserable failure in evolution.

If they're having only one kid and focusing their energy there, that would be a good strategy. But many people of the upper-class are having no children at all, and middle-class couples are more and more often electing to have no kids.

This leaves the lower-class, whose couples often have multiple children. Although people of this class are not necessarily inferior to those of the higher classes, these are people who were--for whatever reason--unable to successfully climb the social ladder.

Generally, the higher your educational level, the more money you make. To succeed in college, you have to have enough mental capacity, and each level higher is more demanding. Evolutionarily speaking, the people at the top should be populating, but they don't feel the desire to.

What do I know? It was the premise of the thread, and you were the one introducing it.
Possibly "advanced" e.g. in exactly what you are asking about: Humans can develop and communicate moral standards?

Well, it's not really my premise. It's the premise I've heard communicated several times before: that humans are more advanced than other species, and that makes us different from all the other species.

Personally, I don´t care much about being advanced or not. What I know is that I am able to come up with ethical/moral considerations, and that my fellow species members display the same ability.
So far I haven´t had a member of another species telling me about their moral/ethical ideas, and I don´t know how to communicate mine to them.

I mentioned earlier that penguins have sort of a moral system, it seems. When one penguin loses its chick, sometimes it'll become envious of another penguin's healthy chick and will try to steal it. But when the other penguins see this, they'll huddle together and force the thieving penguin away.

I believe I saw this in a documentary, but it's mentioned in Wikipedia, too.

Maybe you can tell me how I can practically hold dolphins, elephants, ducks or spiders to moral/ethical standards. What would that look like, practically? How can it be done?

Practically, you can't enforce morality on nature. There isn't enough of a police force to control all of them. But morality isn't strictly about practicality. It's still wrong to steal a television set, even if there's a mob doing the same and nobody is there to catch you.

On another note, I wasn´t aware that Christian morality had a single standard when it comes to humans and other animals. What the heck is the point of this thread? :confused:

According to Christianity, humans are held to a different standard because we were created in God's image. But atheists would say that humans are animals, and it's our level of advancement that puts us at a higher standard.
 
Upvote 0

Nooj

Senior Veteran
Jan 9, 2005
3,229
156
Sydney
✟26,715.00
Faith
Other Religion
Politics
AU-Greens
Most people would say that murder is evil, but they wouldn't make a moral judgement about which side of the road to drive on. There are some things that are considered social norms, which are practiced for convenience but have no moral value. Are you saying that not murdering is also a social norm, apart from morality? Or is it evil to break any social norms?

Not murdering is a social norm, I don't think anyone can deny that. Is it only a social norm? No, I don't think so. People have their own opinions. Society can say that abortion is okay, but there will still be Christians who believe that abortion is wrong.
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,372
114
USA
✟28,792.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not murdering is a social norm, I don't think anyone can deny that. Is it only a social norm? No, I don't think so. People have their own opinions. Society can say that abortion is okay, but there will still be Christians who believe that abortion is wrong.

So if not murdering is more than a social norm, then what else is it? If nothing is intrinsically evil, what makes murder different from misplacing the fork on the dinner table? Is it just the fact that proper silverware setting isn't enforced by law?

PS: I don't think Christians are the only ones who don't like abortion. I would think that Muslims and traditional Jews would not be very fond of it either.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Well, it's not really my premise. It's the premise I've heard communicated several times before: that humans are more advanced than other species, and that makes us different from all the other species.
I´m not sure how to deal with an argument (or the attempt at refuting it) the premise of which neither you nor I agree with. Seems to be a pointless enterprise.
I think you have to make up your mind when discussing with me. Either you are determined to keep arguing against your strawman, or you respond to my points.

As said earlier, I do think that the human species is different from other species (as are other species from each other, btw. Else we wouldn´t distinguish between species, after all). This has nothing to do with superiority or being "advanced".
The main characteristics exclusive to humans:
1. We are not determined by instincts - we can change our behaviour at will.
2. We are able to think abstractly.
3. We are able to commincate abstract thoughts.

All these are necessary prerequisites for engaging in moral/ethical considerations, for communicating them and for groups to negotiate them.

There is no point in discussing morality with a dog, with a lion, with a brick or with my car. It is a category that is unintelligible for those entities. Therefore it´s not applicable.

I can disapprove of a certain behaviour of a non-human animal or object, I can try to prevent it, I can try to use classical conditioning - but an appeal to morality would be lost on them.





I mentioned earlier that penguins have sort of a moral system, it seems. When one penguin loses its chick, sometimes it'll become envious of another penguin's healthy chick and will try to steal it. But when the other penguins see this, they'll huddle together and force the thieving penguin away.

I believe I saw this in a documentary, but it's mentioned in Wikipedia, too.
All sorts of animals display some sorts of attempts to correct the behaviour of others of their species. I´m not sure how that counts as "morality" (as the product of abstract considerations - as we humans have it).
Animals do a lot of stuff we would not accept in human interaction, and they do some stuff that would be acceptable or even welcome. I don´t see how the latter allows us to conclude a sense of morality on their part.

But let´s for argument´s sake say penguins have a penguin morality. Now, what to it? What do you expect me to do? Go evangelizing them and making them adopt my morality?



Practically, you can't enforce morality on nature. There isn't enough of a police force to control all of them. But morality isn't strictly about practicality. It's still wrong to steal a television set, even if there's a mob doing the same and nobody is there to catch you.
That´s just semantics. If you wish we can call a brick "wrong/immoral" for falling on someone´s head (I mean, after all, Jesus even cursed a fig tree).
Personally, I don´t think that makes a lot of sense because ethical/moral judgement imo requires the capability of engaging in moral/ethical considerations on both parts - the self-appointed judge and the judged.

I am generally quite hesitant to anthropomorphize behaviour of non-human animals, of my car or of my computer or of a brick. My car is not "mean" when it refuses to work as I think it should, bees are not "hard-working", crocodiles are not "cruel", computers are not obnoxious when displaying behaviour that I don´t like. All these judgements would require those beings to be aware of those categories and to act on more than just their program.



According to Christianity, humans are held to a different standard because we were created in God's image. But atheists would say that humans are animals, and it's our level of advancement that puts us at a higher standard.
No, that´s not what atheists say. All that atheists say is that they don´t believe that a god exists. You should have taken that in by now.

The reason I don´t hold non-human animals to ethical/moral standards is that they themselves are not capable of abstract moral/ethical considerations. Basically it´s the same reason why I wouldn´t call a mouse "uneducated" because he doesn´t have a high-school diploma.

Different species are different. This statement does not constitute a ranking of their values.

Please - if you respond - answer to my statements. Please don´t hold the "advanced" strawman against my arguments anymore. Tia.
 
Upvote 0

Notedstrangeperson

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
3,430
110
37
✟27,024.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship
Quatona said:
Because they have the capability of abstract thinking. You may call it "advanced" or not - but that doesn´t affect the fact that the human brain is somewhat unique in comparison to other animals.
I'm not sure intelligence has much to do with morality - an intelligent creature would choose the more effecient option while a moral creature would choose the 'good' option, even when it doesn't benefit them. Morality is about what we should do rather than what we can do.

Quatona said:
Initially I was under the impression that you meant to ask: "Why do humans engage in moral considerations?" but this last paragraph seems to suggest that your question actually is "Why do humans behave morally (when applying your particular set of morals) and not completely immoral?"
...
Now, are you asking "What is the evolutionary reason that moral ideas have undergone the changes they have undergone"?

Sorry, but I really still don´t understand what problem you are trying to point out. You seem to be confusing and conflating a lot of different issues.

Maybe you can clarify?

My question isn't what actions are considered moral or immoral, or even if morality is an evolved trait - it's why humans should be moral in the first place (although admittedly these questions are hard to separate).

As I said, to me morality is about what you should to rather than what you can do. Often the 'right' choice is not the easiest, nor does it always benefit us. Sometimes it even harms us. Humans are the only creatures expected to be moral, to choose the 'right' choice - but it's difficult to explain why. We aren't the only animals which understand the needs of others, or are capable of abstract thinking, or have feelings.

Of course that's my opinion. GreyAngel's point is probably a little different.

Speaking of which ...

GreyAngel said:
I mentioned earlier that penguins have sort of a moral system, it seems. When one penguin loses its chick, sometimes it'll become envious of another penguin's healthy chick and will try to steal it. But when the other penguins see this, they'll huddle together and force the thieving penguin away.
Or to be more accurate, these penguins are acting 'morally' by human standards.

--------------------------------------

Quatona said:
As said earlier, I do think that the human species is different from other species (as are other species from each other, btw. Else we wouldn´t distinguish between species, after all). This has nothing to do with superiority or being "advanced".
The main characteristics exclusive to humans:
1. We are not determined by instincts - we can change our behaviour at will.
2. We are able to think abstractly.
3. We are able to commincate abstract thoughts.

All these are necessary prerequisites for engaging in moral/ethical considerations, for communicating them and for groups to negotiate them.

There is no point in discussing morality with a dog, with a lion, with a brick or with my car. It is a category that is unintelligible for those entities. Therefore it´s not applicable.
None of these points are unique to humans. It's well documented that animals learn from their environment and from other animals in their group. They can even be taught human behaviour - apes can learn sign language, dogs can guide the blind and deaf, and certain parrots can use basic logic. They aren't ruled by instinct.

It's also long been known that chimps are capable of abstract thought, but less intelligent primates like baboons can too - but we still don't consider them capable of being moral. Dogs as well.

The more we learn about animals, the harder to it to see what separates them from humans.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
I'm not sure intelligence has much to do with morality - an intelligent creature would choose the more effecient option while a moral creature would choose the 'good' option, even when it doesn't benefit them.
You seem to work from a definition of "morality" that´s alien to me. This might be a major problem in this discussion.
In my opinion abstract thinking (and I did not say: intelligence) plays a very big part in moral considerations. They require the attempt to get a clue what the "good" option is. This again requires an idea of the consequences - immediate and long term, in the small and in the big picture, in regards to different persons and groups, under application of a huge amount of relevant criteria. As well as a critical introspection regarding one´s motives and intentions.
All this is abstract thinking.

Morality is about what we should do rather than what we can do.
Yes, sure.




My question isn't what actions are considered moral or immoral, or even if morality is an evolved trait - it's why humans should be moral in the first place (although admittedly these questions are hard to separate).
Why humans should be moral?
I don´t know. I just observe that each of them puts a lot of effort in the consideration of moral questions (what is the good thing to do, what *should* I do). So they are capable of moral considerations, and they make use of it. I don´t know how to answer a "Why should...?" question when all observations point to the fact that it is already the case. It´s what humans do.

Why should birds fly? Well, they simply do. They have wings and they are capable of flying. Whilst elephants don´t and aren´t. Postulating that elephants should be able to fly would be absurd. Postulating that birds should be able to fly is a moot point.

As I said, to me morality is about what you should to rather than what you can do. Often the 'right' choice is not the easiest, nor does it always benefit us.
I agree with the first points but disagree with the last. The good ooption always benefits us in one way or the other.
Humans are the only creatures expected to be moral, to choose the 'right' choice - but it's difficult to explain why.
What do you mean - "are expected"? Who expects them to?
My observation is: Humans are capable of considering as well as discussing, exchanging and discussing moral considerations. I don´t need to expect them to. They simply do, whilst I don´t observe other animals doing it.

We aren't the only animals which understand the needs of others, or are capable of abstract thinking, or have feelings.
So what?
If you think that animals are capable of abstraction to the point of considering, communicating, discussing and negotiating moral questions - why are there so few non-human participants here on this forum?
I mean, why don´t you simply go ahead and discuss with your cats if it´s right to have sex outside marriage, negotiate with a crocodile if it´s morally ok to kill sentient beings. I wish you best luck and more power to you.

However, I personally don´t believe that can be done. Call me a pessimist. I admit I haven´t put much effort in trying to discuss morality with animals. I simply don´t think it can be done. I don´t expect them to do something that I think they aren´t capable of.



Of course that's my opinion. GreyAngel's point is probably a little different.

Speaking of which ...


Or to be more accurate, these penguins are acting 'morally' by human standards.
Yes, just like bricks aren´t acting morally when they fall on people´s heads by human standards. I don´t expect them to conform with my moral standards because they aren´t capable of understanding them, in the first place. This answer must suffice even though you may think they are capable. You are completely entitled to expect me to have a coherent explanation for my views - but aligning my ideas with your preassumptions is not necessary for my views being coherent.

--------------------------------------


None of these points are unique to humans. It's well documented that animals learn from their environment and from other animals in their group. They can even be taught human behaviour - apes can learn sign language, dogs can guide the blind and deaf, and certain parrots can use basic logic. They aren't ruled by instinct.

It's also long been known that chimps are capable of abstract thought, but less intelligent primates like baboons can too - but we still don't consider them capable of being moral. Dogs as well.
Well, if you guys consider them capable of abstract thinking to the point of moral considerations that´s fine with me. I don´t.

The more we learn about animals, the harder to it to see what separates them from humans.
Ok, you may want to have this discussion with a lion, a mouse or a canary, then.
 
Upvote 0