The Evolution of Morality

[Loudmouth]

It is still self defense.

It wasn't before. Prior to the "stand your ground" laws it was not self defense.

Explain what point you are making here please.

You claim that morality is universal, and yet we are fighting wars over differences in morality. Kind of defeats your whole argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do they consider it immoral?

Why would you have to ask if morality is universal and objective?

All societies believe that the unjustifiable killing of someone is immoral.

Yes, all societies have a view of what is immoral and what is moral. The whole point is that those views differ between societies. What is considered a justifiable killing in one society may not be considered justifiable in another.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It wasn't before. Prior to the "stand your ground" laws it was not self defense.

But it doesn't change the morality of the issue. That is my point. It is a justified killing.

You claim that morality is universal, and yet we are fighting wars over differences in morality. Kind of defeats your whole argument.

Not at all. Why did we fight the war against Hitler?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would you have to ask if morality is universal and objective?

I am asking to find out what you think.

Yes, all societies have a view of what is immoral and what is moral. The whole point is that those views differ between societies. What is considered a justifiable killing in one society may not be considered justifiable in another.

But it isn't. That is what I am trying to show you. It is in the justifying that makes it subjective but the objective principle is that no one should kill someone without justification. That justification may change to subjective elements, but the main principle of no one should kill someone without justification is true throughout the world. That is the object principle of morality.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am asking to find out what you think.

The very fact that you have to ask another person for their subjective opinion says a lot.

It is in the justifying that makes it subjective but the objective principle is that no one should kill someone without justification.

The justification is subjective which makes the whole thing subjective.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it doesn't change the morality of the issue.

Yes, it does.

That is my point. It is a justified killing.

The justification is subjective.

Not at all. Why did we fight the war against Hitler?

To impose our views of morality. Hitler did the same when he invaded France.

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

It wasn't before. Prior to the "stand your ground" laws it was not self defense.

But it doesn't change the morality of the issue. That is my point. It is a justified killing.

But by saying that, you directly contradicted your definition. Your definition said it was an "illegal" taking of a life.

Before the passage of stand your ground laws (SYG), it was illegal, and hence, by your defintion, murder.

after the passage of SYG laws, it was legal, and hence, by your definition, not murder.

The point is that by including "legal" in your definition, you gave up on the point that it is objective, because laws are different in different countries, states, cities, and from time to time, and hence not objective.

This is what loudmouth was trying to point out by mentioning Islamic "honor killings".

Papias

 

[Oncedeceived]

The very fact that you have to ask another person for their subjective opinion says a lot.

IT says nothing other than asking what you meant by what you said.

The justification is subjective which makes the whole thing subjective.

It doesn't make the whole thing subjective at all.

 

[HitchSlap]

IT says nothing other than asking what you meant by what you said.




It doesn't make the whole thing subjective at all.

Of course it does. You think murder is wrong. That is an subjective opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once wrote:




But by saying that, you directly contradicted your definition. Your definition said it was an "illegal" taking of a life.

Before the passage of stand your ground laws (SYG), it was illegal, and hence, by your defintion, murder.

after the passage of SYG laws, it was legal, and hence, by your definition, not murder.

The point is that by including "legal" in your definition, you gave up on the point that it is objective, because laws are different in different countries, states, cities, and from time to time.

This is what loudmouth was trying to point out by mentioning Islamic "honor killings".

Papias

It was always egal if it was a justifiable case of self defense. Before SYG laws you had to go to great lengths to show it was a justifiable case of self defense which if you did you would not be charged with a crime. However, sometimes it was difficult to show that you could have fled or not during the act of defending yourself. They made the law so that you didn't have to provide that sometimes very difficult part of your defense. I would have to see a majority of such cases with the outcome a murder conviction before I would believe that this law changed anything.

That being said, the issue is the same. Whether a murder is justified or not. IF not, it is murder. Everywhere in the world.

 

[Loudmouth]

It was always egal if it was a justifiable case of self
defense.

That's just the point. Before the SYG laws, IT WASN'T JUSTIFIED. What we consider justifiable killing CHANGES OVER TIME. This is because it is subjective.

That being said, the issue is the same. Whether a murder is justified or not. IF not, it is murder. Everywhere in the world.

All you are doing is repeating the definition of murder. We already know that the definition of murder is an unjustifiable homocide. The question is whether or not the justification is subjective.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's just the point. Before the SYG laws, IT WASN'T JUSTIFIED. What we consider justifiable killing CHANGES OVER TIME. This is because it is subjective.



All you are doing is repeating the definition of murder. We already know that the definition of murder is an unjustifiable homocide. The question is whether or not the justification is subjective.

The justification is subjective, however, the principle of unjustifiable killing is the objective morality. The objective morality is that is immoral to kill someone without justification. The justification is subjective. Even in societies that have murder justified in some way does not change the objective principle. Do you see that?

That is why we can call Hitler evil, that his acts were evil. Even though the society said that it was for the good of the society to kill these undesirable (to them) men, women and children; the rest of the world called it immoral. If the rest of the world agreed with Hitler would that make it moral?

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

The justification is subjective, however, the principle of unjustifiable killing is the objective morality.

Hey, that means we can make a simple, fully objective moral code:

Commandment #1: Don't do bad things.
​

Easy - since "bad" is fully objective, not subjective.

Papias

 

[biggles53]

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.



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



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?


You are not telling me how that developed.

I think these principles developed as we as a species developed. As said earlier, we developed brains that allowed us to contemplate the suffering of others. We have the ability to imagine ourselves in the same position. And we then combine this with our evolution as a social species....the knowledge that what is good for the 'tribe' is also good for the individual.

We certainly were able to work out for ourselves that it was harmful and wrong to kill and steal before Moses supposedly staggered down from Sinai with those tablets under his arm....

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once wrote:




Hey, that means we can make a simple, fully objective moral code:

Commandment #1: Don't do bad things.
​

Easy - since "bad" is fully objective, not subjective.

Papias

How do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think these principles developed as we as a species developed. As said earlier, we developed brains that allowed us to contemplate the suffering of others. We have the ability to imagine ourselves in the same position. And we then combine this with our evolution as a social species....the knowledge that what is good for the 'tribe' is also good for the individual.

That has no explanatory power biggles. If we developed them, they are subjective and are only good for some and not all. IF it is good for the tribe what constitutes the tribe?

We certainly were able to work out for ourselves that it was harmful and wrong to kill and steal before Moses supposedly staggered down from Sinai with those tablets under his arm....

That is not the claim.

 

[Sophrosyne]

I have a hard time getting a grasp about evolution giving up survival of the fittest for morality. A system that is from the start taking advantage of culling the weak by killing them off sometimes outright murdering them if you want to equate such. It mainly seems to be only in humans that we see murdering or culling the weak as wrong in lower species it is not only accepted but embraced as a method to propel evolution forward.
I fail to see why the survival of the fittest has to be suspended at some point and fail to see that morality has a place inside of evolution. In evolution if the leader of a group of apes decided to go to war with another group of apes to wipe them out with no justification other than to murder their males and steal their females scientists think this is moral. When a human does this or even God commands a competing or warring faction to be wiped out suddenly it becomes immoral. Is evolution such that certain species are given a free pass to be "immoral" compared to other species?
I don't buy it myself. Scientists make a rule and then change it when it makes evolution look evil. At what point does a species hit a level in evolution where is must adhere to a different moral code?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have a hard time getting a grasp about evolution giving up survival of the fittest for morality. A system that is from the start taking advantage of culling the weak by killing them off sometimes outright murdering them if you want to equate such. It mainly seems to be only in humans that we see murdering or culling the weak as wrong in lower species it is not only accepted but embraced as a method to propel evolution forward.
I fail to see why the survival of the fittest has to be suspended at some point and fail to see that morality has a place inside of evolution. In evolution if the leader of a group of apes decided to go to war with another group of apes to wipe them out with no justification other than to murder their males and steal their females scientists think this is moral. When a human does this or even God commands a competing or warring faction to be wiped out suddenly it becomes immoral. Is evolution such that certain species are given a free pass to be "immoral" compared to other species?
I don't buy it myself. Scientists make a rule and then change it when it makes evolution look evil. At what point does a species hit a level in evolution where is must adhere to a different moral code?

Good points. Evolution I feel is not satisfactory to explain a concept that puts selflessness and others before ourselves. It doesn't fit the naturalistic evolutionary model.

 

[Papias]

Once wrote:

How do you come to that conclusion?

I was joking. By including a subjective term in your claimed "objective" principle, it makes it subjective, just as including "legal" in your definition made it subjective by country or time.


Originally Posted by biggles53

I think these principles developed as we as a species developed. .....the knowledge that what is good for the 'tribe' is also good for the individual.

That has no explanatory power biggles.


It has great explanatory power, because it makes many specific claims (often wildly counterintuitive) that can be tested by experiment. Hundreds of experiments have been done that confirm those claims.
That's covered in great detail in the Moral Animal.

The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology: Robert Wright: 9780679763994: Amazon.com: Books

IF it is good for the tribe what constitutes the tribe?

The tribe is made up of those who matter to you. Interestingly, as we've developed over time, we've expanded our "tribe". The tribe was at first just the family, then the extended family, then the literal tribe, then the city-state, then the country/religion/race, and now, for many (but not the racists, nationalists, religious bigots nor zionists), the whole of humanity. I see this expansion of "who we care about" as a very good thing.


Papias

 

[HitchSlap]

At what point does a species hit a level in evolution where is must adhere to a different moral code?

When we, as a society, decide to.