"Evolution say rape not bad"

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that evoluiton supports ethics indirectly, in that if our optimum stste is flourishing and well being, then it seems sensible that they have at least some adaptive value and are related to psychlogical and social meachanisms that help us survive etc. We can see the cosmic fingerprint of survival value on our moral lives. Helping one another, caring, bonding, working, feleing various types of disgust at certain actions etc.

At a "court case" for a secular ethics, the forensic scientist could adduce certain examples in favour of ethics being part of a natural psychological response to environmental and social pressures. Work for your food, don't murder etc, being examples of cultural themes derived from basic selective pressures made on a social species with a hunter gatherer background.

The human mind being like the ground on which moral culture arises, as Jesus argued IIRC.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think that evoluiton supports ethics indirectly, in that if our optimum stste is flourishing and well being, then it seems sensible that they have at least some adaptive value and are related to psychlogical and social meachanisms that help us survive etc.

Yes and I don't think anyone (who understands the basics of evolution) would disagree with that.

However, there is a big difference between understanding why morality exists/developed on the one hand, and the actual moral compass on the other.

We can see the cosmic fingerprint of survival value on our moral lives. Helping one another, caring, bonding, working, feleing various types of disgust at certain actions etc.

Yep. Not unlike any other social species.
Wolves in a pack also have what one could call "rules of conduct".
So do chimps, gorilla's etc.

Those who break the rules, don't get away with it either.
They will be attacked, killed or simply "banned"/chased away from the group.

Unlike what many people seem to believe, "morals" (the rudimentary idea of rules of conduct in a social setting) is really not a human-only concept. Every social species has some form of social contracts.

At a "court case" for a secular ethics, the forensic scientist could adduce certain examples in favour of ethics being part of a natural psychological response to environmental and social pressures. Work for your food, don't murder etc, being examples of cultural themes derived from basic selective pressures made on a social species with a hunter gatherer background.

Now you lost me.
I disagree with this.

As said, evolution can explain why social contracts exist. What the contents of those social contracts are (or what they should be) is not something that evolution can inform us of.

In fact, I can easily name plenty of moral values that we feel are important, which are completely at odds with darwinian principles.

Take the ethics of medicine for example.
We consider it our moral duty to cure sick children.
In Darwinian terms however, this would mean that today people are successfully reproducing, while their genes naturally weren't "fit" enough to live past the age 5.

A morality dictated by Darwinian principles would not include keeping children alive through liver transplants for example.

On the other hand, humans creating medicine is part of human nature. So one could just as well say that curing the sick is part of the darwinian evolutionary path of Homo Sapiens.

And here we come to the core of the issue: evolution is explanatory, not prescriptive.
This is why I say that it's not really possible to organise a society according to darwinian principles. Because the very essence of the theory is EXPLANATORY.

It's not an ideology. It's not a worldview. It's not a political standpoint.
It's merely a biological phenomena...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If evolution is true then everything about our present human existence is a product of evolution to some degree, including morality.

It is rather bizarre to postulate an alternative universe in which evolution necessarily excludes morality, and then suggest that we are indeed living in such a universe. Morality exists in our existence; therefore this cannot be true.

Using the universal lack of a uniform code of morality as a measure of our social development we could reasonably assume that we haven't fully evolved intellectually, and therefore we cannot definitively reach the conclusions that most are reaching for here.

 

[Catherineanne]

Using the universal lack of a uniform code of morality as a measure of our social development we could reasonably assume that we haven't fully evolved intellectually, and therefore we cannot definitively reach the conclusions that most are reaching for here.

I am afraid universals do not work that way.

Universals are the moral codes themselves, and morality is indeed a human cultural universal. The fact that the codes vary is not surprising; so do dress codes, styles of building houses and ways of preparing food. What matters is the universal itself, not the variation between expressions of the universal.

As for 'fully evolved intellectually', that has no meaning. There is no such thing as 'full evolution' because it is an ongoing and constant process, not a journey whose destination we can claim to have reached.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I am afraid universals do not work that way.

Universals are the moral codes themselves, and morality is indeed a human cultural universal. The fact that the codes vary is not surprising; so do dress codes, styles of building houses and ways of preparing food. What matters is the universal itself, not the variation between expressions of the universal.

As for 'fully evolved intellectually', that has no meaning. There is no such thing as 'full evolution' because it is an ongoing and constant process, not a journey whose destination we can claim to have reached.

My point is that we are not developed enough, as evidenced by our behavior, to reach firm conclusions about morality. How can man set a moral standard that he has no ability, desire, or intention, of meeting?

 

[Catherineanne]

My point is that we are not developed enough, as evidenced by our behavior, to reach firm conclusions about morality. How can man set a moral standard that he has no ability, desire, or intention, of meeting?

Morality has to be aspirational otherwise there is no point having it. We set a high standard knowing full well we are unlikely ever to reach it, and then spend our whole lives trying. That is the whole point, isn't it?

 

[Meowzltov]

And risk birth defects? Since when does human nature actually support having sex with close relatives? Royal lines give plenty of evidence of how unwise that practice is.

Read my post again. I said it's NOT a good idea to look to nature for morals.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Morality has to be aspirational otherwise there is no point having it. We set a high standard knowing full well we are unlikely ever to reach it, and then spend our whole lives trying. That is the whole point, isn't it?

That flies in the face of evolution however.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Read my post again. I said it's NOT a good idea to look to nature for morals.

I did read your post. I don't think that you've chosen an apt example to make your case.

Perhaps you can take this again with a better example, and a reason why your example supports your claim?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Catherineanne]

That flies in the face of evolution however.

No it doesn't. I am afraid you are rather confused about your categories.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No it doesn't. I am afraid you are rather confused about your categories.

I meant the "aspirational" part.

 

[Catherineanne]

I meant the "aspirational" part.

Why would mankind as a whole or individual people aspiring to be more moral be counter to evolution?

That makes no sense whatever.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why would mankind as a whole or individual people aspiring to be more moral be counter to evolution?

That makes no sense whatever.

Thoughts and ideas cannot be observed, therefore they are beyond the realm of scientific observation.

 

[Armoured]

Thoughts and ideas cannot be observed, therefore they are beyond the realm of scientific observation.

Um, that's not accurate, actually. Scientifically conducted polls and surveys exist precisely to quantify thoughts and ideas.

 

[Cearbhall]

Thoughts and ideas cannot be observed, therefore they are beyond the realm of scientific observation.

Yes, they can be, and we do this all the time.

 

[Catherineanne]

Thoughts and ideas cannot be observed, therefore they are beyond the realm of scientific observation.

Of course thoughts and ideas can be observed; there is a whole science devoted to it; Philosophy. The whole of science is devoted to the outcome of those thoughts and ideas; from scio; sciare; to know. And another, devoted to thoughts and ideas about God; theology. And another to thoughts and ideas about rocks; geology. Need I go on?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course thoughts and ideas can be observed; there is a whole science devoted to it; Philosophy. The whole of science is devoted to the outcome of those thoughts and ideas; from scio; sciare; to know. And another, devoted to thoughts and ideas about God; theology. And another to thoughts and ideas about rocks; geology. Need I go on?

You can explain the apparatus of the brain, but not the thoughts generated there. You can demonstrate that thoughts exist, but you cannot see them. Evolutionary science needs to actually see the stuff they are studying. Thoughts fall into that humorous "then a miracle happened" zone.

 

[Catherineanne]

You can explain the apparatus of the brain via evolutionary theory, but not the thoughts generated there.

Your understanding of evolution seems to equate to that of a peanut.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your understanding of evolution seems to equate to that of a peanut.

I think I'm in the majority on that one.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Um, that's not accurate, actually. Scientifically conducted polls and surveys exist precisely to quantify thoughts and ideas.

I mean the thought itself, before it is expressed outwardly.