The Evolution of Morality

[biggles53]

Recent discussions with stevevw prompted me to start a separate thread to deal with some of the issues raised there...

It seems to me that the theory of evolution adequately provides an explanation for the development of morality, or a moral code, within human beings (and, to a limited extent, among other species as well).

Given the traits which humans developed in their evolutionary development, the development of a larger, more complex brain and the tendency towards forming social groups would have endowed a 'fitter' outcome.

Our physical make-up is such that we would not fare very well, if we were limited to speed and strength for our survival...banding together in tribes and utilising our intellect have acted to ensure that we didn't become 'lion lunch'...

So, is it not reasonable to expect that a desire for the tribe to survive and prosper would be likewise a guarantee that the individual would have a better chance? And would it not also be reasonable to assert that the ability to empathise with the plight of others in the tribe would also serve these ends?

Because, at its basis, this is what I suggest morality is....the extent to which each of us can recognise the joy/suffering of others (and relate it to our own) and the desire to contribute to the health of our 'tribe'....

 

[FatBurk]

It seems to me that the theory of evolution adequately provides an explanation for the development of morality, or a moral code, within human beings (and, to a limited extent, among other species as well).

The theory of evolution more than adequately explains what people like to call 'our moral code',
but it's much more than a moral code it's pure self interest, individually we are vulnerable but collectively we can survive and thrive so getting along with other members of the group is a must,
birds flock together for protection and survival as do most fish, cattle and primates, so looking after and considering other members of our species is best for every one of us, what is in the best interests of the group is in our own best interest, we have been doing it for so long we do not even question it any more, we look after each other so that others in turn will look after us.

This has been known since men first came down from the trees (even before that) so someone writing it down was just recording something everyone already knew instinctively.

 

[juvenissun]

Recent discussions with stevevw prompted me to start a separate thread to deal with some of the issues raised there...

It seems to me that the theory of evolution adequately provides an explanation for the development of morality, or a moral code, within human beings (and, to a limited extent, among other species as well).

Given the traits which humans developed in their evolutionary development, the development of a larger, more complex brain and the tendency towards forming social groups would have endowed a 'fitter' outcome.

Our physical make-up is such that we would not fare very well, if we were limited to speed and strength for our survival...banding together in tribes and utilising our intellect have acted to ensure that we didn't become 'lion lunch'...

So, is it not reasonable to expect that a desire for the tribe to survive and prosper would be likewise a guarantee that the individual would have a better chance? And would it not also be reasonable to assert that the ability to empathise with the plight of others in the tribe would also serve these ends?

Because, at its basis, this is what I suggest morality is....the extent to which each of us can recognise the joy/suffering of others (and relate it to our own) and the desire to contribute to the health of our 'tribe'....

Why don't you make up another story called the evolution of civilization? I am sure you are perfectly capable of doing that.

 

[FatBurk]

Why don't you make up another story called the evolution of civilization? I am sure you are perfectly capable of doing that.

How do you think countries that are not Christian survive without the Bible to give them their morals?
where do they get their morals?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because, at its basis, this is what I suggest morality is....the extent to which each of us can recognise the joy/suffering of others (and relate it to our own) and the desire to contribute to the health of our 'tribe'....

There is a difference between empathy and sympathy, but that aside, let me ask you a question:

Should empathy/sympathy be forced on someone against their will?

Suppose someone doesn't have either one and they commit an act that is perfectly consistent with their "jungle mentality" -- like, say, they columbine a school?

Should people stand around wondering why? or do they have to blame it on Doom, and "poor parenting" (whatever that is), and so on and so forth?

 

[FatBurk]

There is a difference between empathy and sympathy, but that aside, let me ask you a question:

Should empathy/sympathy be forced on someone against their will?

Suppose someone doesn't have either one and they commit an act that is perfectly consistent with their "jungle mentality" -- like, say, they columbine a school?

Should people stand around wondering why? or do they have to blame it on Doom, and "poor parenting" (whatever that is), and so on and so forth?

Complete unrelated clap trap.

 

[AV1611VET]

Complete unrelated clap trap.

Wow!

How professional a response!

I stand in awe at your assessment!

 

[FatBurk]

Wow!

How professional a response!

I stand in awe at your assessment!

I call a spade a spade and say it like it is, you waffle to protect yourself and your beliefs, why would you do that?
because you have nothing with which to back up your arguments except an old book of stories.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

There is a difference between empathy and sympathy, but that aside, let me ask you a question:

Should empathy/sympathy be forced on someone against their will?

Suppose someone doesn't have either one and they commit an act that is perfectly consistent with their "jungle mentality" -- like, say, they columbine a school?

Should people stand around wondering why? or do they have to blame it on Doom, and "poor parenting" (whatever that is), and so on and so forth?

I'm not sure about all that.

But I am sure that when it's god who commits genocide with his "jungle mentality", Christians suddenly decide that genocide is a good and moral thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

I call a spade a spade...

Not very good at cards, are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure about all that.

But I am sure that when it's god who commits genocide with his "jungle mentality", Christians suddenly decide that genocide is a good and moral thing.

Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not kill.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exodus 20: 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Poor interpretation. "Thous shalt not murder" is much closer to the original.

Besides, your god advocated murder many times over and was a mass murderer himself.

 

[AV1611VET]

Poor interpretation. "Thous shalt not murder" is much closer to the original.

Matthew 19:18a He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder,

Besides, your god advocated murder many times over and was a mass murderer himself.

This gives me an idea for a challenge.

 

[FatBurk]

Besides, your god advocated murder many times over and was a mass murderer himself.

This gives me an idea for a challenge.

This is a perfect example of someone dismissing something he doesn't want to face, if you read the Bible it tells you that the God of the Bible is a vicious vindictive jealous killer, just the kind of person you would want your children to look up to and follow, if you had something wrong with you that is.

 

[AV1611VET]

if you read the Bible it tells you

No -- you're the one who hears that.

I hear something different.

 

[FatBurk]

No -- you're the one who hears that.

I hear something different.

Of course you do that's why you're a creationist, you read between the lines in the margin back to front and upside down, anyway that will allow you to read and take from it only what you want.
You add verses join verses remove verses and twist verses but you never read it as it is, all in the name of AV1611VET.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is a perfect example of someone dismissing something he doesn't want to face, if you read the Bible it tells you that the God of the Bible is a vicious vindictive jealous killer, just the kind of person you would want your children to look up to and follow, if you had something wrong with you that is.

Please give me an example of anyone that God told Israel to kill that were innocent and had done nothing to be punished for?

 

[juvenissun]

How do you think countries that are not Christian survive without the Bible to give them their morals?
where do they get their morals?

The fruit of telling good from evil. Every human being has it.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm not sure about all that.

But I am sure that when it's god who commits genocide with his "jungle mentality", Christians suddenly decide that genocide is a good and moral thing.

It had to be done that way. There is no other choice. If history replayed one, or a few more times, it still must be done that way.

 

[kellhus]

The fruit of telling good from evil. Every human being has it.

How did this work in, say, the Inca civilization which had features like human sacrifice and institutionalized incestuous marriages in the royal family, and regarded such practices as moral?