The Evolution of Morality

[Oncedeceived]

It is the same evidence that the rest of our body and functions evolved. Our sense of morality is no different than the other instinctual behaviors we have, and they are products of our evolutionary past.

So there is no right or wrong. There is no good or evil.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yet, we don't observe the evolution of morality do we? We may draw reasonable conclusions that are false as well. So what empirical evidence so we have for the evolutionary process of morality?

You do know there is no specific codon for "morality," right? It's just a word we use to describe behavior. Actions and behavior are observable, and we're the ones who ascribe a value to the behaviors.

 

[Loudmouth]

So there is no right or wrong. There is no good or evil.

Sure there are, they just happen to be based on subjective opinion in the same way that there is pretty and ugly, friendly and hostile, etc.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If babies weren't baptized and havent accepted Jesus as their saviour, aren't they full of sin, and going to Hell?

No TFY, we've discussed this before. Babies go to Heaven.

 

[Loudmouth]

What about other animals?

We also observe instinctual social behavior in other animals, and those behaviors are also a product of their evolutionary history.

How do you know morality is a product of the brain?

Because it is the human mind that produces it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure there are, they just happen to be based on subjective opinion in the same way that there is pretty and ugly, friendly and hostile, etc.

Right, so in this view there is no good or evil other than what one determines to be good or evil, leaving one with no good or evil.

 

[bhsmte]

So there is no right or wrong. There is no good or evil.

When you act, your own brain is determining whether your actions are justified or not. When your actions are external, society will also make a determination of whether your actions were morally acceptable or not and that may or may not agree with your own perception of the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

No TFY, we've discussed this before. Babies go to Heaven.

Given that 25-50% of pregnancies naturally abort in the first few months, it would seem that Heaven would be dominated by people that were never even born.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, so in this view there is no good or evil other than what one determines to be good or evil, leaving one with no good or evil.

It leaves us with what we determine as good and evil which would be good and evil. Again, I don't understand why you have such a difficult time with such simple concepts.

 

[bhsmte]

Right, so in this view there is no good or evil other than what one determines to be good or evil, leaving one with no good or evil.

What was considered good 100 years ago in society, may not be considered good today. What is acceptable and what isn't, changes and evolves with society and individuals all the time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We also observe instinctual social behavior in other animals, and those behaviors are also a product of their evolutionary history.

How do you know? How does one look at the DNA of a person and find instinctual social behavior?

Because it is the human mind that produces it. This isn't a hard concept to understand.

Oh the concept is remarkably simple to understand, it just isn't a concept that is proven by empirical evidence.

So you know that the human brain evolved, so this means that it produced morality? That is begging the question and is circular as well. Evolution proves evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You do know there is no specific codon for "morality," right? It's just a word we use to describe behavior. Actions and behavior are observable, and we're the ones who ascribe a value to the behaviors.

I do know that there is no specific codon for morality, nor do I think that there is one or more for moral behavior. We can observe actions and behaviors and we can ascribe value to them, but if we do they can't be any more important than others. Good is not better than bad. It is just a value that is described. Good or evil are just words, just behaviors that are passed down in our genes which makes them inexplicable in the sense of morality or immorality.

 

[Loudmouth]

How do you know?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

How does one look at the DNA of a person and find instinctual social behavior?

You look at the DNA sequences involved in the development of the human brain. Such things are being studied in the field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, often called Evo-Devo.

Oh the concept is remarkably simple to understand, it just isn't a concept that is proven by empirical evidence.

It is as empirically proven as anything else. Morality is the product of humans using their brains.

So you know that the human brain evolved, so this means that it produced morality? That is begging the question and is circular as well. Evolution proves evolution.

I know that humans evolved. The evidence is clear on this point.

 

[Loudmouth]

We can observe actions and behaviors and we can ascribe value to them, but if we do they can't be any more important than others. Good is
not better than bad.

Good is better than bad by definition. You do know how the English language works, don't you? You have twisted yourself into such illogical knots that you can't even use the simplest words correctly.

It is just a value that is described.

Yes, just like beauty, good smelling, creative, artistic, etc. These are all value judgements that we assign to things. Morality is no different.

Good or evil are just words, just behaviors that are passed down in our genes which makes them inexplicable in the sense of morality or immorality.

Why are behaviors inexplicable?

 

[bhsmte]

I do know that there is no specific codon for morality, nor do I think that there is one or more for moral behavior. We can observe actions and behaviors and we can ascribe value to them, but if we do they can't be any more important than others. Good is not better than bad. It is just a value that is described. Good or evil are just words, just behaviors that are passed down in our genes which makes them inexplicable in the sense of morality or immorality.

What is your answer to post 176?

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

If we come across is too lazy to do some looking and learning ourselves, ask others to do the work to teach us, and spout claims and ask others to disprove them, we can rightly expect them to wonder what kind of religion would teach us to be intellectually stunted, and we'll have to explain to Jesus one day why we spent our lives besmirching his Holy Name.

​

Are you chastising me Papias? Disagreement is not ignorance.

Disagreement in an area of ignorance is not rational. To disagree with something, you have to understand it first. It seems you are just learning how morality is proposed to have evolved, and that Soph has less understanding than you do. I've seen you in this thread and others work to gain understanding - which is really good especially given how rare that can be on the internet. You are a considerate and patient person.

There are many people with a lot of understanding - indeed, whole degrees, lifetimes of research, and so on. In fact, there are several whole journals publishing peer-reviewed research every month in this area. There are hundreds or more people actively doing research in this area every day. Now, with that in mind, you can imagine how arrogant it sounds for someone who doesn't even understand what they are proposing to come along and "disagree", out of a position of ignorance, heck, you won't even both to listen to a book on audio that someone else made for us. Yet you still "disagree". That does't seem very Christ-like to me.

So if we are just evolved organisms that are a product of our chemical brains, how do you determine that they would not have a place in our modern society?

By our moral code. More to the point, you can see how they wouldn't have a place (it's not me deciding anything). They would break a law, murder or maim someone, and our human made laws and courts would removed them from society and put them in prison.

How do you proclaim that they are unworthy of a place in society if morality is subjective?

It's not subjective. It's clear what is right and wrong. I still don't understand why you think that I'm saying morality is subjective.

Papias

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is your opinion on the morality behind Hitler being able to go to heaven after the suffering he inflicted and someone who led a much better life not going to heaven?

The morality behind Hitler being allowed in heaven at all is that all sin to God is sin. A little lie to millions dying by someone's hand. So one act of sin is only by degrees and all have the same end. I am guilty in that I am not holy enough to stand in the presence of God. We can only stand in the presence of God covered by Jesus. It is due to God having mercy on me and my sins as it is on someone like Hitler. Mercy isn't mercy if it isn't for everyone, even if we ourselves feel mercy to good for some. Forgiveness is true forgiveness or it isn't forgiveness at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

No TFY, we've discussed this before. Babies go to Heaven.

This is your opinion, as the Bible says no such thing.

 

[HitchSlap]

The morality behind Hitler being allowed in heaven at all is that all sin to God is sin. A little lie to millions dying by someone's hand. So one act of sin is only by degrees and all have the same end. I am guilty in that I am not holy enough to stand in the presence of God. We can only stand in the presence of God covered by Jesus. It is due to God having mercy on me and my sins as it is on someone like Hitler. Mercy isn't mercy if it isn't for everyone, even if we ourselves feel mercy to good for some. Forgiveness is true forgiveness or it isn't forgiveness at all.

IYO, one can live an immoral life, only to recant on his death bed, and all is forgiven? Doe this sound moral to you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Do you think for yourself? You have literally posted this site to me at least a dozen times.

You look at the DNA sequences involved in the development of the human brain. Such things are being studied in the field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, often called Evo-Devo.

Source for the sequences that allow for morality?

It is as empirically proven as anything else. Morality is the product of humans using their brains.

Where? And please refrain from posting your link. Put your argument in your own words using your own thoughts.

I know that humans evolved. The evidence is clear on this point.

So?