If Evolution doesn't have morality, when will Evolution evolve morality?

[Gottservant]

Hi there.

This is more of an after-thought, I had (I wanna go to sleep right now).

But thinking about what is advanced, basically altruism is, since it enables populations to work together and only populations that work together, can keep knowledge of Evolution, together. Seems obvious to me, anyway.

What do you think? Is Evolution going to evolve a morality?

What does it mean to be a moral predator?

(I will stop there as I know you love to dominate the conversation concerning such things).

EDIT:

I just looked at my first post (above) and I realized what I really needed to be saying:

Evolution (on its own) is not a sufficient condition, for sustaining the knowledge of itself.

I can prove it: name one thing the concept of "Evolution" has predatorily killed, devoured, integrated and pursued again. Yet what? It espouses "survival of the fittest" with predatorial conflict (at least frequently) presumed to be the "highest good".

News flash: concepts don't kill people, people do.

Right? And?

Conversely: concepts don't keep themselves, people keep them.

Ok? So?

Motive please! I have laid out in plain English that Evolution does not exist for its own sake. So what is the motive for keeping it: morally??? (yes, it is a moral question, please avoid changing the frame of reference, thankyou)

Waiting.

 

[AECellini]

evolution itself will not have morality, but characteristics we define as moral behaviors do evolve. we see it in ourselves and in other animals. when does it happen? i don't know.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem lies with the definition of "moral," which has been atheized.

Morals deals with mans' relationship to God, whereas ethics deals with mans' relationship to his fellow man.

 

[AECellini]

The problem lies with the definition of "moral," which has been atheized.

Morals deals with mans' relationship to God, whereas ethics deals with mans' relationship to his fellow man.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). - wikipedia

no where does it mention god.

 

[mzungu]

Hi there.

This is more of an after-thought, I had (I wanna go to sleep right now).

But thinking about what is advanced, basically altruism is, since it enables populations to work together and only populations that work together, can keep knowledge of Evolution, together. Seems obvious to me, anyway.

What do you think? Is Evolution going to evolve a morality?

What does it mean to be a moral predator?

(I will stop there as I know you love to dominate the conversation concerning such things).

Evolution is a process and as such it is devoid of sentience and morality. Sleep tight!

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem lies with the definition of "moral," which has been atheized.

Morals deals with mans' relationship to God, whereas ethics deals with mans' relationship to his fellow man.

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). - wikipedia

no where does it mention god.

Why would it mention God?

As I said, it has been atheized ... (God has been removed from the equation and replaced with man).

 

[Booko]

But thinking about what is advanced, basically altruism is, since it enables populations to work together and only populations that work together, can keep knowledge of Evolution, together. Seems obvious to me, anyway.

Many things might seem obvious but on further reflection seem more like...the thoughts of someone intellectually shooting from the hip because they're getting a tad sleepy.

What do you think? Is Evolution going to evolve a morality?

About the same time quantum theory does. Or mathematics.

Scientific endeavors concern themselves with how the physical universe operates.

That does not include issues like morality.*

Morality is the purview of religion, philosophy, and to some extent, law.

*There are a few odd cases where there is overlap, such as the neuroscientists studying brain activity as it relates to altruism. But the study isn't interested in promoting an idea of what is moral -- it's interested in physical brain function.

 

[Booko]

As I said, it has been atheized ... (God has been removed from the equation and replaced with man).

Oh noes! My plumber has atheized my plumbing because he fixed it with no reference to God, since it isn't really relevant to the correct functioning of fixtures!

Maybe I should just pray to have my shower fixed instead of calling the plumber.

It certainly would be cheaper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh noes! My plumber has atheized my plumbing because he fixed it with no reference to God,

So at one time your pipes were moral ... now they're not?

(I suspect you need to read my definition of "atheized" a little more closely.)

 

[Jamin4422]

But thinking about what is advanced, basically altruism is, since it enables populations to work together and only populations that work together, can keep knowledge of Evolution, together. Seems obvious to me, anyway.

Yes, I would think that altruism is what evolution is all about. So any individualism is not a factor to consider in evolution. Also there are those who consider sex without procreation immoral. Only humans have this behaviour. Animals only have relations for the purpose of reproduction. If anything this is what makes man different from the animals. The very first public building was a temple (Gobekli Tepe) and they had temple prostitutes back then. This is clearly something that animals do not do.

 

[Jamin4422]

Maybe I should just pray to have my shower fixed instead of calling the plumber.

Or you could use your God given ability to do it for yourself and quit expecting others to do everything for you. Unless you can make more money doing something else and just do not have the time.

 

[Booko]

So at one time your pipes were moral ... now they're not?

(I suspect you need to read my definition of "atheized" a little more closely.)

Not really.

I've read enough of your posts over the years to roughly gauge your general level of understanding of scientific subjects.

It's something any prof learns to do if they hope to be effective in communicating with students. After a while it gets automatic. *shrug*

 

[Booko]

Or you could use your God given ability to do it for yourself and quit expecting others to do everything for you. Unless you can make more money doing something else and just do not have the time.

Reading is FUNdamental.

 

[Tomk80]

Hi there.

This is more of an after-thought, I had (I wanna go to sleep right now).

But thinking about what is advanced, basically altruism is, since it enables populations to work together and only populations that work together, can keep knowledge of Evolution, together. Seems obvious to me, anyway.

This makes no sense. Try again.

What do you think? Is Evolution going to evolve a morality?

This makes even less sense. Evolution is a process. Processes do not evolve, nor do processes have morals.

What does it mean to be a moral predator?

It means that you are able to put different words behind each which are correct grammatically, but devoid of all meaning otherwise. Here, I can do that to: "What does it mean to be a purple, spotted noise?"

(I will stop there as I know you love to dominate the conversation concerning such things).

blabla

 

[Gottservant]

There are different ways to argue about procreation, but only one way to agree on it.

As for science, consider that meaningful information is statistically a 45 degree angle of probabilistically distributed words (science show on tv reporting actual science), in what way does that, or any, population of data preclude speculation about the most probable occurence in that, or any, data? And if you speculate about the probability of its occurence, what precludes practical determination of the circumstances leading up to that register?

In effect, what you said to me was "'morality' is just a word, now pretend its not scientifically a word" fair translation? What I just said to you was " 'morality' is statistically a word, now prove its not statistically relative and [subtext] therefore relevant"

I think you can see that I am using science to prove relevance. Or is that not peer-ratified enough for you to suddenly understand?

EDIT: I think actually I need to be plain, for your sake: What you are saying to me is that a tree grows, therefore the forest is irrelevant.

 

[Tomk80]

There are different ways to argue about procreation, but only one way to agree on it.

As for science, consider that meaningful information is statistically a 45 degree angle of probabilistically distributed words (science show on tv reporting actual science), in what way does that, or any, population of data preclude speculation about the most probable occurence in that, or any, data? And if you speculate about the probability of it's occurence, what precludes practical determination of the circumstances leading up to that register?

què? Go again?

In effect, what you said to me was "'morality' is just a word, now pretend its not scientifically a word" fair translation? What I just said to you was " 'morality' is statistically a word, now prove its not statistically relative and [subtext] therefore relevant"

What I said was that you can put words in an order and put a question mark at the end, that doesn't mean the question has any sensible meaning. Try again.

I think you can see that I am using science to prove relevance. Or is that not peer-ratified enough for you to suddenly understand?

I can see no such thing. I can see you blathering incoherently, that is what I can see.

I know I asked this before, but let me tell you again. Your posts are incoherent and silly, to the point of being unreadable. The reason you apparently don't get the answers you want, is because nobody has any idea what questions you are asking.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why would it mention God?

As I said, it has been atheized ... (God has been removed from the equation and replaced with man).

He was never in the equation, these ideas of morality or ethics or whatever you want to call them are human constructs. We made them up because they're nice ideas.

 

[Gottservant]

I can see no such thing. I can see you blathering incoherently, that is what I can see.

Case in point, re: above EDIT.

As for your insolence...

...consider that no matter how many groups of individuals say "you don't make sense", there is almost always one or two that reply meaningfully, having fully understood what I said - given that one or two almost always demonstrate that they have fully understood, and time ends, who will be said to be at least "intelligent"? You or them? And time having ended and great numbers of people standing around saying "but we didn't understand" and they did not ask those who understood, who will be considered foolish? You or them?

A man asks many questions, but when he does not seek an answer: he alone is the fool.

 

[AV1611VET]

He was never in the equation, these ideas of morality or ethics or whatever you want to call them are human constructs. We made them up because they're nice ideas.

Well ... I'm not a humanist, and I don't think like one; but I'd say that's a good humanist answer.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Well ... I'm not a humanist, and I don't think like one; but I'd say that's a good humanist answer.

It's what makes sense to me at least...