Evolution and Morality just isn't logical

[Clizby WampusCat]

In Christian Theology the core belief is God is Light, and anything the opposite of it is sin, which is how he doesn't think morals. They just always been existent.

So God did not decide what is right or wrong. God is just relaying what already is right or wrong.

Not possible humans awareness of right and wrong proves morals existed before there existence because human consciences doesn't act before the brain that lacks logical sense so that would mean that once a human is aware of its surroundings than it would only follow that these core ideals would always seen as detrimental, similarly I would make an ex: Murder of toddlers always was seen as wrong in society.

The Spartans, Vikings, Romans, Ancient Chinese Cultures practices infanticide etc. Today in America we kill preborn babies and call that moral.

Is why laws were given to keep society from doing such atrocities do you have any proof that morals isn't caused from human awareness and not just personal opinion if you can reconcile phenomenology than I would accept such an absurdity.

Morals come from what we decide is right or wrong. We use different methods to come to these conclusions. Usually empathy and compassion enter into the equation, you choose to use God's standard I use well being as a start. There have not been any universal moral ideas throughout history. Even today there are people that believe rape, murder etc. are acceptable actions.

Also, who gave you the right to have your own factors of morals and where does it come from?

I did. I have no choice since there are no good reasons to believe a universal moral system exists. The fact is you choose your moral system as well. You choose to believe your personal interpretation of what your God thinks is moral. Christians do not agree on what the bible teaches on morality, everyone decides what moral system they live with, if any at all.

Explain more clearly what this means?

So I have determined that maximizing well being of all people involved should be the goal of my actions. This is a longer discussion as to what this really means. The right action in any situation is what maximizes well being. This is a subjective goal and I grant you that the goal can be anything. But I have met few people that would object to this being a reasonable and good goal.

With this goal in mind I can objectively assess actions in any situation to see if it would further the goal of maximizing well being or not. It is like playing checkers. The rules of checkers are arbitrary or subjective. But once two people agree on the subjective rules and the goal of winning the game they can both objectively compare any move to the goal of winning the game and see if it is a move that furthers that goal or is detrimental to that goal.

 

[durangodawood]

...The rules of checkers are arbitrary or subjective....

Are they?

If the rules are arbitrary, then any other rules could work just as well. I propose every time you king one of your pieces you get to punch your opponent in the face. Why not, if theres no reason the current rules are any better?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Are they?

If the rules are arbitrary, then any other rules could work just as well. I propose every time you king one of your pieces you get to punch your opponent in the face. Why not, if theres no reason the current rules are any better?

Please read my entire post. I agree with you. I said that as long as both parties agree to the rules they can objectively evaluate moves. A punch in the face would be detrimental to the goal of winning the game if the other party never agreed to that rule. Are you suggesting that the rules of checkers are not made up? Here is the entire context of what I said:

With this goal in mind I can objectively assess actions in any situation to see if it would further the goal of maximizing well being or not. It is like playing checkers. The rules of checkers are arbitrary or subjective. But once two people agree on the subjective rules and the goal of winning the game they can both objectively compare any move to the goal of winning the game and see if it is a move that furthers that goal or is detrimental to that goal.

 

[durangodawood]

Please read my entire post. I agree with you. I said that as long as both parties agree to the rules they can objectively evaluate moves. A punch in the face would be detrimental to the goal of winning the game if the other party never agreed to that rule. Are you suggesting that the rules of checkers are not made up? Here is the entire context of what I said:

Yes, checkers is made up. But most made up things are not arbitrary. Except maybe some absurdist doggerel.

I was just quibbling over 'arbitrary'.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Yes, checkers is made up. But most made up things are not arbitrary. Except maybe some absurdist doggerel.

I was just quibbling over 'arbitrary'.

Ok. I just meant that the rules were made up by people and are not intrinsic to the universe.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

@The happy Objectivist would debate you on that because thats not really the case.

Indeed I would.

If objective morality then the objective view of metaphysics.

If the objective view of metaphysics then the primacy of existence principle.

If the primacy of existence then not religion.

The notion of religion being the basis of objective moral principles is self-incoherent.

If religion then the subjective view of metaphysics.

If the subjective view of metaphysics then the primacy of consciousness principle.

If the primacy of consciousness then not objective.

The two notions, objectivity and religion, are incompatible.

 

[dóxatotheó]

So God did not decide what is right or wrong. God is just relaying what already is right or wrong.

God is right and the opposite of him is wrong. The morals exist because God exist they didnt exist before God they only exist because God nature exist.

The Spartans, Vikings, Romans, Ancient Chinese Cultures practices infanticide etc. Today in America we kill preborn babies and call that moral.

All societies throughout history and around the world today, for example, have sanctions against murder. SO to argue a specific group had a specific worldview doesnt make morality not exist. Morality is not dependent on the people, but the people is dependent on the morality.

Morals come from what we decide is right or wrong. We use different methods to come to these conclusions. Usually empathy and compassion enter into the equation, you choose to use God's standard I use well being as a start. There have not been any universal moral ideas throughout history. Even today there are people that believe rape, murder etc. are acceptable actions.

Already told you a specific view doesnt determine what morality is, thats a personal view that ones mans consciences leads them to follow. Not all humans consciences hold those views either. The overall society holds the opposite than what the small majority believes.

I did. I have no choice since there are no good reasons to believe a universal moral system exists. The fact is you choose your moral system as well. You choose to believe your personal interpretation of what your God thinks is moral. Christians do not agree on what the bible teaches on morality, everyone decides what moral system they live with, if any at all.

This OP wasnt for my view. Secondly, I aint trying to prove moral absolutism to you.

So I have determined that maximizing well being of all people involved should be the goal of my actions. This is a longer discussion as to what this really means. The right action in any situation is what maximizes well being. This is a subjective goal and I grant you that the goal can be anything. But I have met few people that would object to this being a reasonable and good goal.

With this goal in mind I can objectively assess actions in any situation to see if it would further the goal of maximizing well being or not. It is like playing checkers. The rules of checkers are arbitrary or subjective. But once two people agree on the subjective rules and the goal of winning the game they can both objectively compare any move to the goal of winning the game and see if it is a move that furthers that goal or is detrimental to that goal.

Jeez I cant follow this

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Has Objectivism Been Refuted?, The Atlas Society | Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Primary reasons for not becoming an Objectivist

I read a little of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog and I was shocked to see that the date of this entry was from this year. This guy has been writing these screeds for years then because I first became aware of him several years ago. The guy is a blatant liar. He says about Rand that "Such critics when confronted with the question Why shouldn’t I be an Objectivist? can only answer: because I want you to adopt my views instead." This is an out-and-out lie. She was asked essentially the same question by Tom Snyder in this interview and her answer was because it was true and corresponded to reality. Not to mention her non-fiction writings where she laid out a logical case for why Objectivisms principles are true, she gave many lectures, and she wrote many essays for the Objectivist Standard newsletter. She did not call her critics evil. She actually said in an interview with Hugh Donahue that she didn't give a d$#n about her critics. The only person who she ever called evil was Immanuel Kant and he was obviously not a critic but she was a critic of his. I highly recommend you go directly to the source material and do your own analysis. I recommend you start with Philosophy: Who Needs it in the book of the same name. It explains in clear terms what philosophy is and why man needs it.

 

[dóxatotheó]

I read a little of the Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature blog and I was shocked to see that the date of this entry was from this year. This guy has been writing these screeds for years then because I first became aware of him several years ago. The guy is a blatant liar. He says about Rand that "Such critics when confronted with the question Why shouldn’t I be an Objectivist? can only answer: because I want you to adopt my views instead." This is an out-and-out lie. She was asked essentially the same question by Tom Snyder in this interview and her answer was because it was true and corresponded to reality. Not to mention her non-fiction writings where she laid out a logical case for why Objectivisms principles are true, she gave many lectures, and she wrote many essays for the Objectivist Standard newsletter. She did not call her critics evil. She actually said in an interview with Hugh Donahue that she didn't give a d$#n about her critics. The only person who she ever called evil was Immanuel Kant and he was obviously not a critic but she was a critic of his. I highly recommend you go directly to the source material and do your own analysis. I recommend you start with Philosophy: Who Needs it in the book of the same name. It explains in clear terms what philosophy is and why man needs it.

I already read Philosophy, you should give me specific philosophers and I will check it out.

 

[gaara4158]

Rereading your initial thesis, it looks like you’re trying to take the term “moral awareness” to mean “awareness of an objective morality,” and then using that meaning to refute the idea that morality could have emerged through evolution. This is easily avoided by taking “moral awareness” to mean “awareness of a preferred moral standard.”

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

God is right and the opposite of him is wrong. The morals exist because God exist they didnt exist before God they only exist because God nature exist.

Then God did not think about or choose what is right or wrong. Saying God is right because that is his essence is making a subjective assessment that He is right. You choose to follow Gods morals as your goal and I choose to follow well-being as my goal. Just because God has morality built into Him does not make those moral correct.

All societies throughout history and around the world today, for example, have sanctions against murder. SO to argue a specific group had a specific worldview doesnt make morality not exist. Morality is not dependent on the people, but the people is dependent on the morality.

I never said morality does not exist. Everyone has a moral standard they adhere to. What is right or wrong is not determined by who has the most power.

Already told you a specific view doesnt determine what morality is, thats a personal view that ones mans consciences leads them to follow. Not all humans consciences hold those views either. The overall society holds the opposite than what the small majority believes.
This OP wasnt for my view. Secondly, I aint trying to prove moral absolutism to you.

Ok

Jeez I cant follow this

What don't you understand about what I said?

 

[stevevw]

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.

Using evolution as the basis for morality is illogical and what is called the genetic fallacy. What we beleive to be the result of evolution has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or not.

 

[Mr Laurier]

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.

Do you live entirely alone?
Evolution suggests nothing. It is merely a process that sorts beneficial traits from detrimental traits.
A social species needs rules to allow everyone to get along. Those rules are morality.
I am less concerned about your "Him", than I am about real people in my community.
the same people I live with.
We dont need absolutes. Just reasonable principles that work.
That which harms me, is evil. That which harms me, also harms you.
Therefore we should try to avoid harming eachother.

 

[stevevw]

Do you live entirely alone?
Evolution suggests nothing. It is merely a process that sorts beneficial traits from detrimental traits.
A social species needs rules to allow everyone to get along. Those rules are morality.
I am less concerned about your "Him", than I am about real people in my community.
the same people I live with.
We dont need absolutes. Just reasonable principles that work.
That which harms me, is evil. That which harms me, also harms you.
Therefore we should try to avoid harming eachother.

But isn't that making "Harm" an absolute or better still objective basis for measuring what is evil or not.

Or another way to look at it that what is determined to be "Harmful" can be subjective. So then we have different measures of harm determining what is evil or not. That would undermine any moral system.

Lastly the idea that morality can be explained by evolution doesnt tell us why something is wrong. Its only descriptive and not prescriptive.

Anyway thats my opinion parden the contradiction. Maybe reasoned opinion lol.

 

[Trusting in Him]

It's very simple for me, I believe that the bible is Gods word and the bible tells me that God does not lie, therefore I believe God account of creation is true. It takes a lot more faith to believe that the whole universe came into being, which a creator. If there is no creator God, then there is no hope for any of us and nothing has any meaning and there is no point in believing in a saviour either. Either you believe that the bible is true, or you don't.

Picking and choosing which bits you want to believe and which bits you don't want to believe is not faith. Where is your salvation when you choose not to believe God's account of creation. If you choose not to believe the book of genesis, then what happens to your understanding of sin? Either you let God be God, or He is subservient to Your own ideas and thinking. You can't have God on your according to own terms and your own ideas, it does not work like that!

 

[Astrid]

Using evolution as the basis for morality is illogical and what is called the genetic fallacy. What we beleive to be the result of evolution has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or not.

The fallacy is in assuming that " common sense "
works for truth it matters of science, when the facts are so often counterintuitive.

 

[stevevw]

The fallacy is in assuming that " common sense "
works for truth it matters of science, when the facts are so often counterintuitive.

I am not sure what do you mean by common sense.

Science cannot answer questions of morality. Science is only descriptive whereas morality is prescriptive. Science only tells us how. It cannot tell us why something is right or wrong morally. Therefore because evolution is a science it cannot explain why something is right or wrong morally.

 

[Astrid]

I am not sure what do you mean by common sense.

Science cannot answer questions of morality. Science is only descriptive whereas morality is prescriptive. Science only tells us how. It cannot tell us why something is right or wrong morally. Therefore because evolution is a science it cannot explain why something is right or wrong morally.

You just identified two questions about morality
science can address.
Various philosophies / religions propose to codify,
assume authority for their schemes of morality,
rules of right and wrong.
Its not a competition with science.
Nobody and nothing can demonstrate objective
absolutes, for all that some like to claim it.
Morals, right and wrong are a collective and case by
case matter.
Example-
Steal an airplane, fly it to an enemy country
and turn it over to them?
Where is the absolute morality to that?

 

[stevevw]

You just identified two questions about morality
science can address.
Various philosophies / religions propose to codify,
assume authority for their schemes of morality,
rules of right and wrong.
Its not a competition with science.
Nobody and nothing can demonstrate objective
absolutes, for all that some like to claim it.
Morals, right and wrong are a collective and case by
case matter.
Example-
Steal an airplane, fly it to an enemy country
and turn it over to them?
Where is the absolute morality to that?

Under deontology Stealing is an absolute moral where we cannot steal no matter what the circumstances. This is a rule or duty based ethic.

 

[Ophiolite]

objective morality is a fact. No matter if evolution is true or not.

What is your evidence for this statement?

In Christian theology they believe the code of conduct was given by God, the origin of it stems from the opposite of God himself. Simple terms, whatever the opposite is what we see wrong and whatever isn't the opposite is what we see right.
Its a thing we have by nature which stems from existence itself

Your two paragraphs appear, to me, to contradict each other. The first paragraph contradicts the notion that evolution led to morals, while the second is wholly consistent with the notion that it did.

Using evolution as the basis for morality is illogical and what is called the genetic fallacy. What we beleive to be the result of evolution has nothing to do with whether morality is objective or not.

The evidence and a carefull analysis of that evidence support the notion that morals are an expression of evolved behaviours. On that basis evolution and morality are intimately connected and so, to invoke a genetic fallacy, is erroneous.