If you feel that something is not correct in someone's argument, why would you use it in yours? I guess that doesn't quite make sense to me.
To get the idea across. It encourages survival the same way a cold day encourages the wearing of sweaters. That's all I meant.
Lets take this a step back. Where did the intellect evolve? One must show that intelligence is a evolutionary outcome but how did this occur? IF we are to use intelligence as a direct link to morality, which it must, then we must first explain intelligence and its evolution.
I think intelligence is a result of the brain functioning. Once brains develop and become large and complex enough, creatures can invent ideas like morality and ascribe them to behaviors.
So a simple answer to morality as we view it today is a result of survival behavior of long past generations.
I think that's a plausible foundation for concepts of human morality. Humans have piled on all manner of ideas onto it since its simple beginnings, such as the notion that it is supernatural in origin.
We know that in many cases that aggressive behavior can have great advantage in survival rates. We know that in many cases choosing self centered behavior has great advantage to survival. We know that in some cases eliminating others has great advantage to survival. We know that in some cases male promiscuity can have great advantage to survival.
All true. They can potentially be useful for survival.
So why do we see the counter cases as the ones that give rise to morality which if evolution alone and survival alone would instill in the genes of the surviving populations?
Like I said in previous posts, co-operative behavior is not the only survival strategy, but it's not a bad one either. Everyone pitches in and good-will and co-operation is fostered among the group. Things are kept stable and stability means you aren't getting killed. It's not always a rose garden, but its the basis for a code of conduct about how members of a group should act.
It seems to me an argument that is constructed to show two different behaviors, two different outcomes from the same process using one motivation. Survival.
I think you could argue that every species has a different set of behaviors. There are often similarities though - a good idea is a good idea.
This goes to another earlier comment - I argue that having a species whose members are pre-disposed to aiding one-another, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for others, will be able to survive better than if all members were utterly selfish and ruthless towards each other. I see you agreed - if it's behavior that contributes to a species' successful survival, there's no reason why evolution, which produces such a wide variety of life and behaviors, couldn't produce a species that would adopt such behavior.
So evolution says that our behavior good or bad is a result of our genes being passed on from past generations because that behavior resulted in survival. So regardless of what we find in our behaviors of today can be explained by evolution. Which begs the question.
I think that's broadly correct, though I'm not sure what question it's begging. My argument is that behavior came first, and then once humans had developed the intellect they started inventing ideas like morality and ascribing it to behaviors.
It also brings to light that all behavior is a result of our genes which in turn, makes morality nothing more than what we can do or be, or on the other hand something we can not do or be. So a right or wrong, good or evil has no real meaning.
I don't agree with that. I don't see any reason why intelligent beings cannot invent such things.
This is very true and an example of how instincts are not the reason for morality. We experience that today as well. Morality flies in the face of instincts to preserve self.
I disagree, and I think I've shown how very basic behaviors can form the basis for common human concepts of morality, including sacrifice for others.
You can see this but is there empirical evidence for morality being a product of evolution?
I can't link you a research paper or anything if that's what you're asking. I wouldn't know where to start looking for one. But I wouldn't know where to find empirical evidence that 2 + 2 = 4 either, and I doubt you'd find many who'd argue otherwise. I think my logic is pretty solid.
How does it program instructions to help at all? How does it program specific instructions of what is right and wrong or good or evil? Good is only what helps survival and evil is only that which promotes survival too, due to the fact that evil is just a behavior that has been passed on from previous generations.
Most life on some level wants to live - it feels life is generally preferable to death. Life strives to survive. Creatures that do not die out. Many living creatures start out with basic instincts for survival - find cover, cry out for help, etc. I couldn't explain to you the science behind how it works, but it
seems to without any apparent instruction from other beings. So there's a certain amount of behavior that can be engrained into a living creature that doesn't require intelligent thought or learning from others.
Ideas like good and evil come later when humans develop intelligence to invent them.
And those that are not instinctively not to? If it is easier and more efficient to develop some generalized inclinations to helping others why is it that the opposite is found in culture today?
There's nothing forcing specific humans to follow instinct - people can decide to ignore compulsions or laws and so forth if they want to. Its the dark side of human intellect - you can recognize that you don't have to be bound by ideas if you don't want to be.
But this can't be a notion that's very strange - people clearly do things that are not in keeping with your views on morality, so its not as if they're bound to follow it even if morality is supernatural. They're certainly not bound to follow natural ideas.
I agree but that is looking at what we have now and has nothing to do with how it was in long lost civilizations. We know we have great atrocities in history that would point to behavior counter to this. So if our morality is a product of past helpful survival behavior, so are the great atrocities that counter that.
This goes back to my comment about evolution not aiming to produce your specific ideas on morality. It isn't, so of course you'd see things that don't match up with them.
And as I said people can come along and invent many wildly varying ideas and concepts that layer on top of the basics. Oblierating rival tribes is something that we look on with our specific morality and find abhorent, while others with a differing view might find it justified, even righteous - an act condoned by a higher power that cannot be anything other than perfectly moral.
How is it counter to morality of humans when it is instinctual in nature and passed on from past generations?
Some behavior in other species is seen as counter to the general morality of humans, who have developed their morality from a source of different behaviors. Again, this process isn't aiming to produce your specific ideas on morality, so you're going to see things that don't match up with them.
This can be countered by entire societies that go against helping others. If you explain morality you have to explain immorality. I don't think you have.
I hope I've been a little clearer with this post. And frankly, I feel the fact that there have been so many differing views on moral behavior throughout human history (not to mention all the different behaviors in the animal kingdom) goes against the notion that there's this one 'true' supernatural morality underpining all of existence.
Now this to me makes a marked difference in the theological worldview compared to the naturalistic. I see intelligence and morality in all life forms as instilled by the Creator. This type of thing to me inspired more confidence in the design of life by God. I would like you to consider that out of all the animal world exists a common thread of intelligence and characteristic that go against the premise of survival. I think that real good and real evil exist and it explains the experiences we have in life more fully than mindless naturalistic ones.
In our posts we've gone over a number of cases where you've pointed out in nature and in other human societies how creatures do not act in accordance with this 'common thread' - how such behavior could not be naturally evolved because it would go against survival and that it might only be a case of 'family members protecting their own'.
I've shown you a case in nature where this is not so and suddenly it's become an example of God's grand design - that all of the animal world has this common element of design. Now any behavior I might describe which could form the basis for ideas of morality becomes an example of supernatural design aiming for a specific human morality.
I'd bring up how, by your own logic, this then means that anything that goes against your common thread would also be a result of God's design (or a failure thereof), but whenever I see that kind of argument made, generally the 'fallen world tainted by sin' excuse is what follows.
Layering the supernatural atop the supernatural does not, for me, do a better job of explaining things than a purely natural view.
I see this common thread arising from the notion that life is generally preferable to death, and living creatures will strive in accordance with this because those who don't will not survive. From this basic starting point, you can get to a lot of different survival strategies - including co-operation which requires interaction and leads to ideas on how to properly behave towards one-another.
If that were the case we would see see the world's organisms and most certainly humans getting better and better and more moral. We do not see this in our world today.
Again, this is presuming evolution's is shooting specifically for what you consider to be morality.
Because the survival of the entire species can potentially be improved if its members are not totally selfish. The 'selfishness' (if that's what you want to call the will to live) is on the species' scale, not the individual scale.
However you base this on your view of the world and it has no more truth than what my view is of the world. I think your view of the world requires my view of the world to explain morality.
Well I can't agree with that - mine doesn't require
anything supernatural.
I also want to thank you for your serious discussion. I respect someone who can articulate their view honestly.
Back at'cha.
