The Evolution of Morality

[Belk]

There are things that are universally accepted as immoral or moral. For instance, murder is considered universally considered immoral.

Not really. There are common themes in morality but having an evolutionary explanation would account for common themes with no need for an "Objective" morality. In point of fact what we see is that human morals fall into broad generalizations that are very complex and not overly logical. Take the trolly problem for example.

Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HitchSlap]

Not really. There are common themes in morality but having an evolutionary explanation would account for common themes with no need for an "Objective" morality. In point of fact what we see is that human morals fall into broad generalizations that are very complex and not overly logical. Take the trolly problem for example.

Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. In the real world, we all follow situational morals. I'm not sure why it's so hard for theists to understand this.

 

[biggles53]

So morality is not universal or objective. Morality is only what is right for you or right for me but there is no actual truth in morality?

I think there are some overarching principles that we use as a foundation, but, as I think Hitchslap has said, there are situations in which we apply those principles differentially...

To use a fairly coarse example, yes, we have an over-riding principle that states that it is wrong to kill other humans. However, there are situations in which this principle gives way to other considerations.....war, capital punishment, euthanasia, self-defence...are all examples of where the principle gives ground to an even more compelling one........and that is that we make a judgement as to where the greatest harm to the community and our fellow man lies......

This is how our moral code has developed.....

 

[biggles53]

How do you determine if morality has truth? Is truth determined subjectively?

Good point.....

I always get my Socrates and my Plato mixed up, but one of 'em helped us to understand the difference between moral virtue and intellectual virtue. To be seekers of 'truth', we need not necessarily be morally grounded......and vice versa..

 

[Oncedeceived]

I completely disagree. The only hope of ever finding an objective standard in morality is through naturalism because the only place we find objectivity is in naturalism. In religion, all we have is relativistic morality where preference for one religion over another is the only criteria for what is and is not moral.

Religion yes, God no.

The only way I can see for ever arriving at an objective morality is through reason and logic as it applies to the natural world. You can not arrive at an objective morality simply by saying, "Well, I prefer this religion, so that must be true."

Which is not the argument.

Why not? Good and evil is related to the sense of empathy, reason, and logic that evolved in our species. How is that not naturalistic?

You tell me, it is your claim. How in a naturalistic worldview does good and evil exist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think there are some overarching principles that we use as a foundation, but, as I think Hitchslap has said, there are situations in which we apply those principles differentially...

What are these overarching principles used as a foundation and where do they come from? Situations are different with different outcomes reflected in them but there is still what we ought to do rather than we just do.

To use a fairly coarse example, yes, we have an over-riding principle that states that it is wrong to kill other humans.

Right. Where does that over-riding principle come from?

However, there are situations in which this principle gives way to other considerations.....war, capital punishment, euthanasia, self-defence...are all examples of where the principle gives ground to an even more compelling one........and that is that we make a judgement as to where the greatest harm to the community and our fellow man lies.....

Why in a naturalistic explanation do we care what has the greatest harm to a community and our fellow man if for example we die in the process or our families die in the process?

This is how our moral code has developed

You are not telling me how that developed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. In the real world, we all follow situational morals. I'm not sure why it's so hard for theists to understand this.

Situations are only effected by morality that is already instilled within us. We act in different situations according to how we feel we ought to act.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why does morality need to be objective?

So are you saying you do not believe it is?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Also, man made scientific theories are objective. You can still have an objective system even if it is produced by humans.

How?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you determine if morality has truth? Is truth determined subjectively?

Do you think there is objective truth?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please demonstrate how murder is objectively immoral.

Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not exactly correct. Murder is just another way of saying "immoral killing". It is true that there is a concept of immoral killing in each culture, but there is no universal agreement of what is and isn't murder. What constitutes an immoral killing changes from one society to the next.

Using the definition I used. Is that a universal principle?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not quite that straightforward, murder is what we call a homicide we consider immoral.

Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

 

[Loudmouth]

Religion yes, God no.

Which gods do or do not exist is also subjective.

You tell me, it is your claim. How in a naturalistic worldview does good and evil exist?

Good is what improves society and reduces suffering. Evil makes society worse and causes suffering. Only through application of our natural ability to reason and use empathy can we hope to figure this out. Blindly following a set of rules written in a religious text is no way to do it, at least in my eyes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Are there universal laws across all nations and societies for what is and is not a murder? Last I checked, murder is determined relative to the situation and the society it occurs in. What would be considered a moral honor killing in an Islamic country would be considered murder and immoral in Western countries, as one example. Even the definition of murder in the US has changed with the advent of "Stand Your Ground" laws.

 

[Loudmouth]

Using the definition I used. Is that a universal principle?

There is a universal principle that killing a person can be immoral. However, what is and isn't an immoral killing changes from one society to another.

 

[Loudmouth]

How?

Scientific theories are supported or falsified based on empirical facts, not subjective opinions. That is what makes it objective.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which gods do or do not exist is also subjective.

That is only true if there is no God. You as a non-believer would see it as subjective but believers do not. For believers and that includes those who are not Christians hold that their god is the only god. So if God is a true objective reality, all can't be right but one could be true.

Good is what improves society and reduces suffering. Evil makes society worse and causes suffering. Only through application of our natural ability to reason and use empathy can we hope to figure this out. Blindly following a set of rules written in a religious text is no way to do it, at least in my eyes.

Who determines what improves society? Hitler thought that he was improving society, actually had reasons that he felt rationalized his actions yet most people consider the acts he perpetrated were evil. So, if good is what improves a society, that can not be a principle that is objective. We can see that what a society may think is best for the whole is not always good and can be an evil. ON the flip side who determines evil comes from making a society worse and causes suffering. Wars can be good if it is our freedoms or our lives are at risk and this could cause suffering in those people the wars are against. Is that evil? Empathy and morality are not the same thing, they can be connected but they are not one in the same.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Scientific theories are supported or falsified based on empirical facts, not subjective opinions. That is what makes it objective.

Scientific theories are supported or falsified based on empirical facts, yes, but that does not mean it is objective. Scientific theories are opinions based on evidence. They may not even be true. Evidence can be misleading or misinterpreted which means that it is subjective.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientific theories are supported or falsified based on
empirical facts, yes, but that does not mean it is objective.

Yes, it does.

Scientific theories are opinions based on evidence.

False. They are predictive and testable models based on empirical facts.

Evidence can be misleading or misinterpreted which means that it is subjective.

That is not what subjective means.