Evolution and Morality just isn't logical

[dóxatotheó]

To argue human evolution is the answer to our moral awareness lacks logical sense heres why,
if moral positions are simply the moral beliefs of a species. Which I believe that is what their positions are when they state their position that biological processes cause evolution, then it simply does not follow that because our moral beliefs have been shaped by the forces of evolution it isn't bearing or the cause on how we ought to act.
If evolution has programmed us to believe we should to act a specific type of way, than we should already hold that view on how we ought to act. The fact that evolution has shaped what we think proper norms of behavior than what we had does not have any bearing on whether there are objective norms of behavior in the first place nor does positions on detrimental positions would also make that conclusion.
Their moral beliefs would differ, but of course what the moral realist claims is that there are objective norms of conduct that do not depend on the beliefs of the individuals who hold them for their existence or truth.
Evolutionist moralist would argue that evolution “programs” different species to accept different moral codes this gives us reason to doubt the existence of objective moral codes and species transcendent moral truths which already refutes the original argument that they already presented.
SO NO ABSOLUTELY NOT that our moral awareness exist cause evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I clipped out three sentences from the middle bit because I wanted to address some specific points in it as a start.

The fact that evolution has shaped what we think proper norms of behavior does not have any bearing on whether there are belief-independent norms of behavior in the first place nor does positions on detrimental/trimental positions would also make that conclusion.

Are you agreeing to the proposition that evolution shapes moral positions, or did you mean that this is your position "even if evolution shaped morality"?

I don't know what "trimental" means.

Nor, do I know what "belief-independent norms of behavior" are. They sound like either intrinsic moral positions either from evolution or from some supernatural spiritual knowledge.

Their moral beliefs would differ, but of course what the moral realist claims is that there are mind-independent norms of conduct that do not depend on the beliefs of the individuals who hold them for their existence or truth.

What are "mind-independent norms of conduct"? Conduct or behavior is driven by the minds and brains controlling the rest of the body. Also not quite sure what the existence of truth is about here.

evolutionist moralist would argue that evolution “programs” different species to accept different moral codes this gives us reason to doubt the existence of mind-independent and species transcendent moral truths which already refutes the original argument that they already presented.

Morality operates within minds, so I'm not sure what "mind-independent moral truths". I don't think an evolutionary morality would call for "species transcendent moral truths" at all.

This is an interesting question overall, but I'm having some problems following your argument and meanings.

 

[SilverBear]

To argue human evolution is the answer to our moral awareness lacks logical sense, heres why
if moral positions are simply the moral beliefs of a species, and I believe that is what their positions are when they state their position, then it simply does not follow that because our moral beliefs have been shaped by the forces of evolution it isn't bearing or the cause on how we ought to act. If evolution has programmed us to believe we should to act a specific type of way, than we should already hold that view on how we ought to act.

 

[Occams Barber]

To argue human evolution is the answer to our moral awareness lacks logical sense, heres why
if moral positions are simply the moral beliefs of a species, and I believe that is what their positions are when they state their position, then it simply does not follow that because our moral beliefs have been shaped by the forces of evolution it isn't bearing or the cause on how we ought to act. If evolution has programmed us to believe we should to act a specific type of way, than we should already hold that view on how we ought to act. The fact that evolution has shaped what we think proper norms of behavior does not have any bearing on whether there are belief-independent norms of behavior in the first place nor does positions on detrimental/trimental positions would also make that conclusion. Their moral beliefs would differ, but of course what the moral realist claims is that there are mind-independent norms of conduct that do not depend on the beliefs of the individuals who hold them for their existence or truth. evolutionist moralist would argue that evolution “programs” different species to accept different moral codes this gives us reason to doubt the existence of mind-independent and species transcendent moral truths which already refutes the original argument that they already presented. SO NO ABSOLUTELY NOT that our moral awareness exist cause evolution.

I think you need to go back and rewrite this post to make it a little more intelligible. Apart from the problems @Hans Blaster has pointed out, your excessively long sentences and the absence of paragraphs make it almost unreadable.

I think, but I'm not sure, your argument revolves around morality as an instinctive behaviour as opposed to morality as a learned behaviour. If so, you may be on interesting ground.

OB

 

[Trusting in Him]

If we believe in evolution and not in creation, then evolution suggests that God does not exist and therefore we are not answerable to Him for how we behave and choose to live our lives. So how do we know what are the absolutes defining good and evil, if we are not ultimately answerable to God.

 

[Occams Barber]

So how do we know what are the absolutes defining good and evil, if we are not ultimately answerable to God.

Perhaps there are no absolutes defining good and evil. What is morally acceptable is relative to time, place and culture.

BTW - there are many Christians who accept the concept of evolution. Evolutionary science, like all science, has no opinion on the existence of God(s).

OB

 

[The happy Objectivist]

To argue human evolution is the answer to our moral awareness lacks logical sense, heres why
if moral positions are simply the moral beliefs of a species, and I believe that is what their positions are when they state their position, then it simply does not follow that because our moral beliefs have been shaped by the forces of evolution it isn't bearing or the cause on how we ought to act. If evolution has programmed us to believe we should to act a specific type of way, than we should already hold that view on how we ought to act. The fact that evolution has shaped what we think proper norms of behavior does not have any bearing on whether there are belief-independent norms of behavior in the first place nor does positions on detrimental/trimental positions would also make that conclusion. Their moral beliefs would differ, but of course what the moral realist claims is that there are mind-independent norms of conduct that do not depend on the beliefs of the individuals who hold them for their existence or truth. evolutionist moralist would argue that evolution “programs” different species to accept different moral codes this gives us reason to doubt the existence of mind-independent and species transcendent moral truths which already refutes the original argument that they already presented. SO NO ABSOLUTELY NOT that our moral awareness exist cause evolution.

It is really very simple. What's good or bad for us is determined by our nature as human beings, not by us. It has to be discovered by us but it is not determined by us. We discover what's good for us by looking at reality, what type of being we are and what type of world we live in, and what our lives require for us to continue living. We identify and retain this knowledge in the form of concepts and principles. We do not do this automatically and it isn't implanted in our brains by evolution. Evolution gave us the type of brain and consciousness that we have but we must choose to use it and we must also learn the rules for using it. Evolution does not give us this information. It only gives us the means of discovering and retaining knowledge.
Our ability to reason is that means but it must be chosen. That is the second most fundamental choice you have, to think or not, to the full, active use of your mind or to simply drift along acting on the range of the moment. It is the second most fundamental choice but it is the first moral choice and therefore the most fundamental virtue. This is morality in a nutshell: I'm alive and I want to keep on living and I want to have a good life now what do I need to do to achieve this goal. Morality is a set of principles to guide the actions and choices that determine the course of one's life. There's no shortcut. There are no rules written in the sky nor handed down by anyone. It is up to each individual, it is your responsibility, to think and to discover and validate the knowledge of what is good or bad for you and by extension others.

Of course, you can read or hear what others have to say about morality but you must do the work of validating what they say. You can't just accept it on someone's say so. If thinking is the fundamental virtue, then accepting what others tell you without validation is the fundamental vice.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If we believe in evolution and not in creation, then evolution suggests that God does not exist and therefore we are not answerable to Him for how we behave and choose to live our lives. So how do we know what are the absolutes defining good and evil, if we are not ultimately answerable to God.

There is no good evidence that moral absolutes exist. We get to determine what is good and bad. Moral absolutes don't exist even if God exists because God determines what is right and wrong so they are subjective to God. What makes God's idea's on morality correct if He exists?

 

[dóxatotheó]

Are you agreeing to the proposition that evolution shapes moral positions, or did you mean that this is your position "even if evolution shaped morality"?

I mean even if that was the case meaning even if it was true. meaning I would accept an position for the sake of the argument but doesn't mean I agree with the position.

I don't know what "trimental" means.

not harmful

or, do I know what "belief-independent norms of behavior" are. They sound like either intrinsic moral positions either from evolution or from some supernatural spiritual knowledge.

It the position independent(objective) moral grounds are shape independently than from person to person

Morality operates within minds, so I'm not sure what "mind-independent moral truths". I don't think an evolutionary morality would call for "species transcendent moral truths" at all.

Its evolution of our brains not from core species. The thread is speaking about Russ position on objectivity from evolution of our brain.

What are "mind-independent norms of conduct"? Conduct or behavior is driven by the minds and brains controlling the rest of the body. Also not quite sure what the existence of truth is about here.

same-thing shaped (objective) independently, also existence of truth means from core origin not core possibilities.

Morality operates within minds, so I'm not sure what "mind-independent moral truths".

same-thing shaped (Objective) independently within the species instead from person to person and this thread is about Russ position on evolution of species brain's not just plain old evolution of human species.

This is an interesting question overall, but I'm having some problems following your argument and meanings.

Essentially what I am arguing is this.
"Lowered genetic fitness due to inbreeding led to the evolution of the juvenile sensitive period by means of natural selection; the inhibition experienced at sexual maturity led to prohibitions and cautionary myths against incest or (in many societies) merely a shared feeling that the practice is inappropriate. Formal incest taboos are the cultural reinforcement of the automatic inhibition, an example of the way culture is shaped by biology. But these various surface manifestations need not be consulted in order to formulate a more robust technique of moral reasoning. What matters in this case is the juvenile inhibition: the measures of its strength and universality, and a deeper understanding of why it came into being during the genetic evolution of the brain. (Ruse, 184)

 

[dóxatotheó]

It is really very simple. What's good or bad for us is determined by our nature as human beings, not by us.

This is about origin not about what we know about human awareness in philosophy.

We discover what's good for us by looking at reality, what type of being we are and what type of world we live in

Reality existence has the same amount of proof as the position absolute moral existence exist from a diety.

We identify and retain this knowledge in the form of concepts and principles. We do not do this automatically and it isn't implanted in our brains by evolution.

This is what the OP is about???

Evolution gave us the type of brain and consciousness that we have but we must choose to use it and we must also learn the rules for using it.

That just confused the heck out of me.

Evolution does not give us this information. It only gives us the means of discovering and retaining knowledge.

OP is targeting moral realism for Evolution Objectivist.

Our ability to reason is that means but it must be chosen.

Interesting so Objective morality is where you hold so moral relativism isn't your position even as an atheist.

That is the second most fundamental choice you have, to think or not, to the full, active use of your mind or to simply drift along acting on the range of the moment. It is the second most fundamental choice but it is the first moral choice and therefore the most fundamental virtue. This is morality in a nutshell: I'm alive and I want to keep on living and I want to have a good life now what do I need to do to achieve this goal. Morality is a set of principles to guide the actions and choices that determine the course of one's life. There's no shortcut. There are no rules written in the sky nor handed down by anyone.

Absolute morality isn't a disprovable case but this isn't what the OP is about, also I understand morality to be a set of principles but those principles aren't originating from events through our course of being but rather from our pure awareness of the sort.

It is up to each individual, it is your responsibility, to think and to discover and validate the knowledge of what is good or bad for you and by extension others.

Than how do we know if something is detrimental in our society?

Of course, you can read or hear what others have to say about morality but you must do the work of validating what they say. You can't just accept it on someone's say so. If thinking is the fundamental virtue, then accepting what others tell you without validation is the fundamental vice.

I mean this position is quite interesting.

 

[dóxatotheó]

think you need to go back and rewrite this post to make it a little more intelligible.

I will Im editing it as we speak haha I apologise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I mean even if that was the case meaning even if it was true. meaning I would accept an position for the sake of the argument but doesn't mean I agree with the position.

not harmful
It the position independent moral grounds are shape independently than from person to person
Its evolution of our brains not from core species. The thread is speaking about Russ position on objectivity from evolution of our brain.
same-thing shaped independently, also existence of truth means from core origin not core possibilities.
same-thing shaped independently within the species instead from person to person and this thread is about Russ position on evolution of species brain's not just plain old evolution of human species.
Essentially what I am arguing is this.
"Lowered genetic fitness due to inbreeding led to the evolution of the juvenile sensitive period by means of natural selection; the inhibition experienced at sexual maturity led to prohibitions and cautionary myths against incest or (in many societies) merely a shared feeling that the practice is inappropriate. Formal incest taboos are the cultural reinforcement of the automatic inhibition, an example of the way culture is shaped by biology. But these various surface manifestations need not be consulted in order to formulate a more robust technique of moral reasoning. What matters in this case is the juvenile inhibition: the measures of its strength and universality, and a deeper understanding of why it came into being during the genetic evolution of the brain. (Ruse, 184)

I've read your reply carefully, but I am even more confused by what you wrote than the OP.

1. Trimental is not a word in English.

2. What is the "Russ position"? The context is not apparent.

3. The only part of you post that was comprehensible was the long quote about incest prohibitions. It contrasts what seems to be the theme of your OP, as it clearly demonstrates an evolutionary origin of that particular "moral" response.

 

[dóxatotheó]

There is no good evidence that moral absolutes exist.

Correct, but doesn't negate the possibility of moral absolutes existence because human's themselves have awareness of good and bad explicitly because of our nature which isn't answerable through genetic fitness but through mystery itself.

We get to determine what is good and bad.

How so?

moral absolutes don't exist even if God exists because God determines what is right and wrong so they are subjective to God. What makes God's idea's on morality correct if He exists?

Interesting the Euthypro Dilemma. But if you really wanna answer here.
P1: God is Absolutely Independent
P2: God is All Knowing
P3: If he is All Knowing than he doesn't have the process to change
P4: Morals exist cause God
P5: God doesn't do the opposite of himself because he's absolute and All knowing
Conclusion: God's morality can't be subjective of himself because he's absolute and all knowing.

 

[dóxatotheó]

What is the "Russ position"? The context is not apparent.

Ruse argues that our “sense of ‘right’ and the corresponding sense of ‘wrong’, feeling we take to be above individual desire and in some fashion outside biology, are in fact brought about by ultimately biological processes.

Trimental is not a word in English.

I used it so much on discord realize it wasn't I apologise.

 

[dóxatotheó]

If we believe in evolution and not in creation, then evolution suggests that God does not exist

Not true evolution is the answer to how not why.

So how do we know what are the absolutes defining good and evil, if we are not ultimately answerable to God.

I'm a Christian Evolutionist I accept evolution with theism, me believing evolution doesn't refute God it only answers how we have certain traits.

 

[dóxatotheó]

To argue human evolution is the answer to our moral awareness lacks logical sense heres why,
if moral positions are simply the moral beliefs of a species. Which I believe that is what their positions are when they state their position that biological processes cause evolution, then it simply does not follow that because our moral beliefs have been shaped by the forces of evolution it isn't bearing or the cause on how we ought to act.
If evolution has programmed us to believe we should to act a specific type of way, than we should already hold that view on how we ought to act. The fact that evolution has shaped what we think proper norms of behavior than what we had does not have any bearing on whether there are objective norms of behavior in the first place nor does positions on detrimental positions would also make that conclusion.
Their moral beliefs would differ, but of course what the moral realist claims is that there are objective norms of conduct that do not depend on the beliefs of the individuals who hold them for their existence or truth.
Evolutionist moralist would argue that evolution “programs” different species to accept different moral codes this gives us reason to doubt the existence of objective moral codes and species transcendent moral truths which already refutes the original argument that they already presented.
SO NO ABSOLUTELY NOT that our moral awareness exist cause evolution.

@Hans Blaster @Occams Barber edited

 

[dóxatotheó]

Perhaps there are no absolutes defining good and evil. What is morally acceptable is relative to time, place and culture.

Morality is not determined by situations, but conditioned by it. It determines it partly, not wholly. There are three things that make a moral act good or bad: situation, motive, and the act itself. All this means is that one should apply objective principles to situations. Also, cultures doesn't really make ones values correct in ethics.If your a moral relativist I would say quite interesting.

BTW - there are many Christians who accept the concept of evolution. Evolutionary science, like all science, has no opinion on the existence of God(s).

I agree heavily.

 

[Hans Blaster]

SO NO ABSOLUTELY NOT that our moral awareness exist cause evolution.

Who is claiming evolution is caused by moral awareness?

 

[Gene2memE]

I'd argue that Frans de Waal's observations and experimentation with other primates (chimpanzees, bonobs and macaques) as well as other social mammals (elephants, dogs and rats) show there is definitely a logic to the evolutionary development of moral concepts and moral reasoning in social creatures.

Here's a nice summary on the current state of knowledge on the evolutionary origins of morality:

Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates

For those that want a TL;DR: "We propose that the ultimate function of human morality is best understood as a straightforward adaptation that enabled the fundamentally interdependent lifestyle of our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Even though full-blown morality is most likely unique to humans, several of its key elements can be found in non-human primates and some other animals."

 

[dóxatotheó]

Who is claiming evolution is caused by moral awareness?

"We think morally because we are subject to appropriate epigenetic rules. These predispose us to think that certain courses of action are right and certain courses of action are wrong. (Ruse, p.180)".
Im reading a book on this its an response to this man