Evolution and Morality

[Eudaimonist]

Proof of this would be greatly accepted, because as far as evolution is concerned, the only driving force behind life, is passing your genome on to the next generation. Where is there morality in that?

I don't view things in that way. Evolution fully explains why we are here and are human, but it doesn't determine morality as some sort of God-replacement. Morality does not necessarily have to with an explanation of origins. It may relate to something else.

Morality is a hindrance to procreation and the advancement of one's genes into the next generation.

Not necessarily (it may help one's children to survive due to stable family life and civilization), but I agree that natural selection has no direct relationship with morality.

As we see, our society's moral standard is eroding based on the unquestioned embrace of evolution

I don't see anything like that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Notion]

Something that is unaware cannot be the source of moral truth, as morality is of concepts and conception - it is of awareness.

And that awareness must also be truth; if not, if moral awareness is not the awareness of truth, then morality is made-up nonsense.

If morality truly exists, if there is any truth to it, then moral truth doesn't just come from God, it is God, and our conception of him is the witnessing of God.

Otherwise, truth is what the spirit makes it, and there really is no absolute truth.

 

[TillICollapse]

I've never totally understood the seeming infatuation with morality amongst the religious. I almost see it as a sort of narcissism, or perhaps focus on one's own self image or ego or something to that effect. "Am I good person ? How can I know whether I am ? Am I bad ?" etc. I'm not saying this is the focus across the board, as people evaluate choices and attempt to learn from them, seek to make choices that benefit over those that cause harm, etc. I'm talking about what seems like an infatuation with what is okay to do, not okay to do, and how that reflects on someone's perfection or lack of it, who is a sinner and who isn't, etc. I wonder how many people attempt to be "moral" for vanity sake, so to speak.

Having said that, I would consider that choices trump moral concepts, in that ultimately the choice a person makes helps to determine how we view what was good/bad in both the short term and long term. They can attempt to base their choice on any number of things: reason, axioms, selfishness, principles, morality, etc. But ultimately, the choice stands on it's own as an event that sets other events into motion. The resulting consequence of those events is what arguably counts.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Something that is unaware cannot be the source of moral truth, as morality is of concepts and conception - it is of awareness.

That does not follow. When we conceptualize, we are typically conceptualizing physical entities and their relationships. There is no reason why conceptualization must pertain to some sort of "pure awareness".

If morality truly exists, if there is any truth to it, then moral truth doesn't just come from God, it is God, and our conception of him is the witnessing of God.

That doesn't follow at all. If I understand that I am typing on a laptop computer, and that this is true, that doesn't mean that this truth comes from God and is God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I've never totally understood the seeming infatuation with morality amongst the religious. I almost see it as a sort of narcissism, or perhaps focus on one's own self image or ego or something to that effect. "Am I good person ? How can I know whether I am ? Am I bad ?" etc. I'm not saying this is the focus across the board, as people evaluate choices and attempt to learn from them, seek to make choices that benefit over those that cause harm, etc. I'm talking about what seems like an infatuation with what is okay to do, not okay to do, and how that reflects on someone's perfection or lack of it, who is a sinner and who isn't, etc. I wonder how many people attempt to be "moral" for vanity sake, so to speak.

Having said that, I would consider that choices trump moral concepts, in that ultimately the choice a person makes helps to determine how we view what was good/bad in both the short term and long term. They can attempt to base their choice on any number of things: reason, axioms, selfishness, principles, morality, etc. But ultimately, the choice stands on it's own as an event that sets other events into motion. The resulting consequence of those events is what arguably counts.

It is for the individual to decide the degree of morality in their choices. It's quite subjective.

 

[Paradoxum]

This was posted elsewhere and I thought would be a good starter.


Proof of this would be greatly accepted, because as far as evolution is concerned, the only driving force behind life, is passing your genome on to the next generation. Where is there morality in that? In the wild, animals often fight to the death over the chance to mate, is that moral? If I kill a man who is also attempting to mate with the same woman I am attempting to mate with, is that moral? If the answer to the latter is no, then evolution has zippity-do-da to do with morals. Morality is a hindrance to procreation and the advancement of one's genes into the next generation.

I see why you think that, but that's a narrow way of looking at it. Humans live in societies, and murder breaks society. So while you might spread your genes by with murder, this will weaken society. A weakened society will more likely die out, or be invaded by less murderous society.

Groups which don't murder will grow more. So empathetic genes spread more.

The same goes for monogamous relationships. The best chance for ones genes to move to the next generation is to have multiple mates. Again, looking to the animal world, we see very little in the way of monogamy.

Maybe monogamy isn't necessary, but I don't think monogamy is morally required.

It isn't as if no other animals are monogamous though. I'm not sure it's as rare as you think it is.

Though we do see our society heading in this direction. Men and women having anonymous sexual relations with many multiple partners (though the children created in these sexual acts are often simply disposed of in abortion, but that's a separate topic). As we see, our society’s moral standard is eroding based on the unquestioned embrace of evolution, certainly morality isn't being furthered by it.

Sex outside marriage isn't based on evolution. People don't do it because they believe in evolution.

Personally I don't think sex outside marriage is immoral. I do see how monogramy could be good for bringing up children though. On the other hand, maybe other setups work well too.

 

[Chesterton]

Of what use is morality to a man alone on an island?

Ever see the film Cast Away with Tom Hanks? You should see the deleted scenes. Oh! what depravity can take place between a lonely man and his volleyball!

 

[Chesterton]

Why not? I can not only imagine that some people could think that slavery is okay, I know that people actually felt that way for most of history.

I can imagine it too because the basic principle is still with us. If you don't pay taxes out of your work effort you'll be put in a cage, and if you resist that you'll be shot. There's a thread right now in the Ethics forum where someone's claiming slavery is alive and well in America today and he's right in a way. For the good of society, people one way or another have to work for the benefit of other people.

 

[Davian]

I can imagine it too because the basic principle is still with us. If you don't pay taxes out of your work effort you'll be put in a cage, and if you resist that you'll be shot. There's a thread right now in the Ethics forum where someone's claiming slavery is alive and well in America today and he's right in a way. For the good of society, people one way or another have to work for the benefit of other people.

Are you free to leave your country?

 

[Davian]

Ever see the film Cast Away with Tom Hanks? You should see the deleted scenes. Oh! what depravity can take place between a lonely man and his volleyball!

Thank-you for those mental images....

 

[Chesterton]

Are you free to leave your country?

I've looked into it before. They make it extremely difficult if not impossible to have a renouncement of citizenship accepted. I recall that the famous chess player Bobby Fischer renounced citizenship and left, but Uncle Sam kept sending him tax bills in Switzerland or somewhere for years. Besides, what country could I go to that I wouldn't be taxed?

 

[TillICollapse]

I've looked into it before. They make it extremely difficult if not impossible to have a renouncement of citizenship accepted. I recall that the famous chess player Bobby Fischer renounced citizenship and left, but Uncle Sam kept sending him tax bills in Switzerland or somewhere for years. Besides, what country could I go to that I wouldn't be taxed?

Find yourself an abandoned offshore platform.

 

[Davian]

I've looked into it before. They make it extremely difficult if not impossible to have a renouncement of citizenship accepted. I recall that the famous chess player Bobby Fischer renounced citizenship and left, but Uncle Sam kept sending him tax bills in Switzerland or somewhere for years. Besides, what country could I go to that I wouldn't be taxed?

The 5 most livable countries with no income tax | Nomad Capitalist

 

[Chesterton]

Find yourself an abandoned offshore platform.

Wow that is hilarious. It didn't mention anything about taxes, so I guess they get income from selling those titles of nobility. I've already purchased mine, so I'll be changing my screen name to The Right Honorable Baron von Chesterton of Sealand.

 

[Chesterton]

The 5 most livable countries with no income tax | Nomad Capitalist

That's just tax on income though. I've heard those kind of places make up for it with extra high sales taxes, property taxes, investment taxes, fees and licences for blowing your nose, etc.

 

[Notion]

That does not follow. When we conceptualize, we are typically conceptualizing physical entities and their relationships. There is no reason why conceptualization must pertain to some sort of "pure awareness".

Morals are like precepts -- conceptual guides, or principles, used for the measurement of spiritual righteousness. Your morals are states of your awareness.

That doesn't follow at all. If I understand that I am typing on a laptop computer, and that this is true, that doesn't mean that this truth comes from God and is God.

Father is the awareness of Truth. (Soul/mind)
Jesus is the image of Truth. (Body/form)
The Holy Ghost is the spirit of Truth. (will/desire/force)

Mind, Body, and Spirit of God.

Think of it like these words are the image of my awareness, where my awareness is the conception of my spirit. (God is one.)

By reading these words you take in my body (which is the image of my awareness) and, with your spirit, you conceive the images thereof (which becomes your awareness or what you see.)

If you are thinking about what you are reading right now, you are conceptualizing (attempting to conceive/become aware of) the image of truth. Upon conception, my body becomes your awareness, and, hopefully, you will be able to more properly conceive of the Spirit.

If you already know what I am saying then you have already conceived of the meaning, or awareness, in these words - you are already aware of the concepts (the awareness or "meaning" which these words are the image of.)

If after reading this you start to think of what you have just read, try to recognize how much your will and desire (your spirit) plays a role in how you conceive of what I wrote. Try to recognize that it is your spirit which you are translating/breathing into the images of your awareness (how you "feel" about what I am saying is measured by and against what you have already conceived to be the images of Truth.)

And lastly, if you are spiritually mind, you should not only see the shapes of these words, nor only my awareness within these words, my concepts, but you should also see my spirit, which is my will and desire. You should look to see what I wrote all these words for / what my will is: so that you can conceive the Truth, so that you can come to know God. That is what being spiritually minded is about: seeing the Spirit.

Hope that helps.

 

[TillICollapse]

Wow that is hilarious. It didn't mention anything about taxes, so I guess they get income from selling those titles of nobility. I've already purchased mine, so I'll be changing my screen name to The Right Honorable Baron von Chesterton of Sealand.

;-)

Sealand should be on any serious travelers bucket list imo lol

 

[ViaCrucis]

Evolution produced our moral sense. But it does not (and should not) determine our moral positions.

I would second this.

CryptoLutheran

 

[Chesterton]

Evolution produced our moral sense. But it does not (and should not) determine our moral positions.

I would second this.

CryptoLutheran

This idea is based on the premise that morality tends to favor survival, but have either of you ever seen a fish wearing a robe? That's because fish don't have priests, kings or judges. No religion, government or law; none of the implements of morality. Yet they've been around longer than we have.

If Nazi Germany had conquered the world as they wanted, or if ISIS or Mexican drug cartels came to rule the world, it would not affect survival of the species.

 

[Davian]

That's just tax on income though. I've heard those kind of places make up for it with extra high sales taxes, property taxes, investment taxes, fees and licences for blowing your nose, etc.

It may be that there is no free lunch to be had.