The Existence Of Morality

[Spademan 94]

so I would have been arguing with empty space.

Which you should have done, because then you would have been a Zen Buddhist, which is pretty wise.Of course, I would then berate you constantly for being a fucking Buddhist. Fucking buddhist.

[brvheart 1,752]

i was making the point that murder, genocide etc, were in the name of an "objective" standard considered moral at one time, and now are generally not.and that applies to the whole world, not just christians. those things have gradually come to be considered immoral only through collective social experience.obviously humanity never was in touch with any pre-existing objective moral standard.

I understand what you're saying here, but that isn't what I was responding to. Also, Murder was wrong in the Bible from about the 2nd chapter when Cain killed Abel... and then a few chapters later in Exodus when it was part of the 10 commandments.

The fact that morality shifted even within the Bible supports crow's point.

I disagree on this.

Wow. That is an ironic comment.Who do you think is brainwashing people against Christianity?

The ACLU, every website link that Crow posts, the site that VB loves, democrats, etc etc. democrats was a joke.

[BaseJester 1]

I disagree on this.

Really?

38: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Are you saying Christianity and Judaism are morally equivalent and differ only theologically?Certainly this sort of thinking is in the Jewish oral tradition, but I wouldn't expect you to hold this position.

[crowTrobot 2]

Also, Murder was wrong in the Bible from about the 2nd chapter when Cain killed Abel

killing a fellow family or tribe member for no reason was considered wrong, but otherwise there were radically different standards of moral justificationfor killing humans than exists today.

... and then a few chapters later in Exodus when it was part of the 10 commandments.

followed closely by justified stoning of adulterers, killing children for blasphemy, mass genocide etc.

[crowTrobot 2]

democrats

obama is a secret atheist! impeach!

[speedz99 145]

Which you should have done, because then you would have been a Zen Buddhist, which is pretty wise.Of course, I would then berate you constantly for being a fucking Buddhist. Fucking buddhist.

I almost continued on about arguing with empty space, but I'm intimidated by the impressive knowledge of buddhism that some of yous guys seem to possess...s.

[Balloon guy 158]

The evolution of this thread:Me: You claim morality evolved, I say it didn'tOthers: What about animals, they show signs of moralityMe: Yea, but animals having morality doesn't prove it evolvedOthers: Yea, but since it exist, it must have evolved, since we already know that everything else in the entire existance of the universe evolved.Me: That would be a false arguing technique, called Arguing from AuthorityCrow: It's true, everyone knows it, it's not arguing from authority ( this was my favorite part )Me: Still doesn't give you any basis to make the claim that morality evolvedOthers: you don't understand evolutionMe: Doesn't matter, even though I do, you made the claim morality evolvedOthers: Oh yea, well you don't even know what morality is.Me: Morality is an outside benchmark for judging the merits of actionOthers: NO!, morality is the collection of rules for right and wrong that people have figured out would be best for them.Me: So you really believe that morality is the general consensus of a group of people?Others: NO!, morality is an esoteric thought with no real substance or definition and absolutely no absolutesMe: Okay..so then why would you want to make the statement that morality evolved if it's existance is an illusionary, generic, subjective guide with floating value sets?Others: You don't understand anything.Me: I guess not.

[crowTrobot 2]

The evolution of this thread:Me: You claim morality evolved, I say it didn'tOthers: What about animals, they show signs of moralityMe: Yea, but animals having morality doesn't prove it evolvedOthers: Yea, but since it exist, it must have evolved, since we already know that everything else in the entire existance of the universe evolved.Me: That would be a false arguing technique, called Arguing from AuthorityCrow: It's true, everyone knows it, it's not arguing from authority ( this was my favorite part )Me: Still doesn't give you any basis to make the claim that morality evolvedOthers: you don't understand evolutionMe: Doesn't matter, even though I do, you made the claim morality evolvedOthers: Oh yea, well you don't even know what morality is.Me: Morality is an outside benchmark for judging the merits of actionOthers: NO!, morality is the collection of rules for right and wrong that people have figured out would be best for them.Me: So you really believe that morality is the general consensus of a group of people?Others: NO!, morality is an esoteric thought with no real substance or definition and absolutely no absolutesMe: Okay..so then why would you want to make the statement that morality evolved if it's existance is an illusionary, generic, subjective guide with floating value sets?Others: You don't understand anything.Me: I guess not.

you: morality can only have come from god.us: god isn't necessary to explain moral behavior because it could have evolved, and here's evidence to support thatyou: *WARNING WARNING: in over my head with this subject. commencing operation "spend-25-pages-misrepresenting-everything-the-other-side-says" to create smoke screen to hide behind*

[Balloon guy 158]

you: morality can only have come from god.us: god isn't necessary to explain moral behavior because it could have evolved, and here's evidence to support thatyou: *WARNING WARNING: in over my head with this subject. commencing operation "spend-25-pages-misrepresenting-everything-the-other-side-says" to create smoke screen to hide behind*

evidence = subjective explanation of morality?A loaded argument isn't a winning arguement..it's a dodge

[vbnautilus 48]

It went down more like this: BG: Morality was given to us by God. You say it could have evolved, but morality is contrary to evolution. Others: Since morality conveys an advantage to its bearers, it is therefore consistent with evolution. Further evidence for this is that other animals who live in complex social groups, including those to whom we are genetically related, show the beginnings of morality. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution. Others: Evolution is a process by which beneficial traits proliferate. Since morality is a beneficial trait, its proliferation is consistent with evolution. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution. Others: You keep saying that without explaining why you think that. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution. Others. We have explained why that isn't true. This explanation is accepted by all of the world's biologists and ecologists. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution and Dawkins's first name is Dick!--P.S. I think the beginning of this thread was better where we were discussing whether or not there could be an objective standard for morality without religion. Then it devolved into the above.

[Balloon guy 158]

It went down more like this: BG: Morality was given to us by God. You say it could have evolved, but morality is contrary to evolution. Others: Since morality conveys an advantage to its bearers, it is therefore consistent with evolution. Further evidence for this is that other animals who live in complex social groups, including those to whom we are genetically related, show the beginnings of morality. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution. Others: Evolution is a process by which beneficial traits proliferate. Since morality is a beneficial trait, its proliferation is consistent with evolution. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution. Others: You keep saying that without explaining why you think that. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution. Others. We have explained why that isn't true. This explanation is accepted by all of the world's biologists and ecologists. BG: But morality is contrary to evolution and Dawkins's first name is Dick!--P.S. I think the beginning of this thread was better where we were discussing whether or not there could be an objective standard for morality without religion. Then it devolved into the above.

I can see how this perspective could be the one someone sees.And I like itBut here is another view of the same story:Me: You claim morality evolved because in your opinion things evolved and this is consistant with things evolving. And they evolved for the reason that the best changes are the ones that survive..which is a subset of survival of the fittest. I hold that survival of the fittest is contrary to what we think of as morality.You: No it isn't, because things evolve that help us get better, and things that don't help us are left behind in the dung heap of evolutionary refuge.Me: Right, and things that survive, survive because of the survival of the fittest mode of evolution, which I don't hold is complimentary to the idea of morality.You: But all you keep saying is that it is 'contrary to evolution'.Me: That's right, because you are 'just claiming' that it is consistant with evolution. Why should my explanation have greater detail than yours?You: Because there are more of us making random claims to knowing what morality is, even though we are really just saying that morality isn't something we can make a definitive answer for because we haven't really thought much of it.

[crowTrobot 2]

evidence = subjective explanation of morality?A loaded argument isn't a winning arguement..it's a dodge

you're still doing it. just stop already.

[Balloon guy 158]

you're still doing it. just stop already.

See, you are fully convinced that you have won the argument, that your argument is flawless and complete, and that anyone who thinks differently is misdirecting. You live in the world of argument to the authortiy, make exagerated claims to the value of your explanations, and insist on pretending that you have won and I am just being difficult.This is why your quest for world destruction of religion is isolated to minority status and in the end will fizzle out for the next fad de jour of the rebelious youth claiming to have reinvented the wheel.

[crowTrobot 2]

See, you are fully convinced that you have won the argument, that your argument is flawless and complete, and that anyone who thinks differently is misdirecting. You live in the world of argument to the authortiy, make exagerated claims to the value of your explanations, and insist on pretending that you have won and I am just being difficult.This is why your quest for world destruction of religion is isolated to minority status and in the end will fizzle out for the next fad de jour of the rebelious youth claiming to have reinvented the wheel.

honestly can't tell if you are actually serious or just pulling strings. i doubt you are able to tell the difference yourself at this point.

[Randy Reed 0]

The evolution of this thread:Me: You claim morality evolved, I say it didn'tOthers: What about animals, they show signs of moralityMe: Yea, but animals having morality doesn't prove it evolvedOthers: Yea, but since it exist, it must have evolved, since we already know that everything else in the entire existance of the universe evolved.Me: That would be a false arguing technique, called Arguing from AuthorityCrow: It's true, everyone knows it, it's not arguing from authority ( this was my favorite part )Me: Still doesn't give you any basis to make the claim that morality evolvedOthers: you don't understand evolutionMe: Doesn't matter, even though I do, you made the claim morality evolvedOthers: Oh yea, well you don't even know what morality is.Me: Morality is an outside benchmark for judging the merits of actionOthers: NO!, morality is the collection of rules for right and wrong that people have figured out would be best for them.Me: So you really believe that morality is the general consensus of a group of people?Others: NO!, morality is an esoteric thought with no real substance or definition and absolutely no absolutesMe: Okay..so then why would you want to make the statement that morality evolved if it's existance is an illusionary, generic, subjective guide with floating value sets?Others: You don't understand anything.Me: I guess not.

OH really? I thought it was something God gave us at creation, not an outside subjective benchmark.

[Randy Reed 0]

See, you are fully convinced that you have won the argument, that your argument is flawless and complete, and that anyone who thinks differently is misdirecting. You live in the world of argument to the authortiy, make exagerated claims to the value of your explanations, and insist on pretending that you have won and I am just being difficult.This is why your quest for world destruction of religion is isolated to minority status and in the end will fizzle out for the next fad de jour of the rebelious youth claiming to have reinvented the wheel.

Well, it seems you are making my point. Humankind's biggest fear is reality so you are probably right. Zealots will probably win and kill the smart people.

[Balloon guy 158]

OH really? I thought it was something God gave us at creation, not an outside subjective benchmark.

oh

[BaseJester 1]

Evolutionary survival of the fittest says I should get the best mate and procreate.

Me: Right, and things that survive, survive because of the survival of the fittest mode of evolution, which I don't hold is complimentary to the idea of morality.You: But all you keep saying is that it is 'contrary to evolution'.Me: That's right, because you are 'just claiming' that it is consistant with evolution. Why should my explanation have greater detail than yours?

If I understand you correctly, you're judging the process of evolution as immoral. That is, you're treating survival of the fittest as a philosophy.In your view, a person who believes evolution occurred and also judges the existence of the advanced race of humans as Good would be compelled by his principles to practice Survival of the Fittest (i.e., eugenics, as Kramit pointed out on page 1) for the betterment of the species. He should throw the defective babies over the cliff like the Spartans of lore.To the rest of us, survival of the fittest (lowercase) is a predictive and descriptive theory of biology, not a philosophy. People don't consult The Origin of Species to learn how to behave. The same way a belief in gravity doesn't stop us from throwing a ball into the air or erecting buildings, a belief in evolution doesn't stop us from caring for sick babies.

[DerekTah 0]

I can see how this perspective could be the one someone sees.And I like itBut here is another view of the same story:Me: You claim morality evolved because in your opinion things evolved and this is consistant with things evolving. And they evolved for the reason that the best changes are the ones that survive..which is a subset of survival of the fittest. I hold that survival of the fittest is contrary to what we think of as morality.You: No it isn't, because things evolve that help us get better, and things that don't help us are left behind in the dung heap of evolutionary refuge.Me: Right, and things that survive, survive because of the survival of the fittest mode of evolution, which I don't hold is complimentary to the idea of morality.You: But all you keep saying is that it is 'contrary to evolution'.Me: That's right, because you are 'just claiming' that it is consistant with evolution. Why should my explanation have greater detail than yours?You: Because there are more of us making random claims to knowing what morality is, even though we are really just saying that morality isn't something we can make a definitive answer for because we haven't really thought much of it.

Gee, I hope no one was arguing that bolded part, its just plain old wrong. One can evolve and still have thing that don't help out on survival of the species per say. I don't think the positioning of the windpipe and esophagus is that much of help to humans on the overall scale, but it hasn't threatened our extintion (at least not yet).

[Balloon guy 158]

If I understand you correctly, you're judging the process of evolution as immoral. That is, you're treating survival of the fittest as a philosophy.In your view, a person who believes evolution occurred and also judges the existence of the advanced race of humans as Good would be compelled by his principles to practice Survival of the Fittest (i.e., eugenics, as Kramit pointed out on page 1) for the betterment of the species. He show throw the defective babies over the cliff like the Spartans of lore.To the rest of us, survival of the fittest (lowercase) is a predictive and descriptive theory of biology, not a philosophy. People don't consult The Origin of Species to learn how to behave. The same way a belief in gravity doesn't stop us from throwing a ball into the air or erecting buildings, a belief in evolution doesn't stop us from caring for sick babies.

You are right, but I am not talking about the current stage of our evolution where we have decided that darwinian evolution is passe and that now we do what we do because we do it. Over and over again there is a convenient overlooking of what stage of evolution that morality is in when I say it is not comfrotable with evolution.Go back to pre morality, which is a condition that existed in order for crow and Hitchens to make the statement that 'morality evolved',. So back in the day when morality hadn't evolved, when there were no right or wrongs, when pre-morality man walked with a purposeful gait and looked down on the weak...that would be the time when morality and darwinian evolution would be at odds with each other.Of course it's real convinient to see how morality evolved if you use morality to justify an action.

[Balloon guy 158]

Gee, I hope no one was arguing that bolded part, its just plain old wrong. One can evolve and still have thing that don't help out on survival of the species per say. I don't think the positioning of the windpipe and esophagus is that much of help to humans on the overall scale, but it hasn't threatened our extintion (at least not yet).

Sounds like you read the scopes trail transcript where they argued that the human species has 180 vestigial organs...That was one of the many scientific facts used to teach evolution in schools.

[crowTrobot 2]

Go back to pre morality, which is a condition that existed in order for crow and Hitchens to make the statement that 'morality evolved',. So back in the day when morality hadn't evolved, when there were no right or wrongs, when pre-morality man walked with a purposeful gait and looked down on the weak...that would be the time when morality and darwinian evolution would be at odds with each other.

there never was a time when homo sapiens or their predecessors didn't function in social units. there never was a time when basic empathetic behavior within the family/tribewouldn't have been beneficial for individuals. obviously empathetic behavior predates humans, and probably pre-dates all of our most recent ancestors. mammals have beenbehaving socially for tens of millions of years. animals have presumably been behaving in a self-sacraficing manner to ensure the survival of their young for hundreds of millions. those beneficial behaviors have been gradually morphing and expanding to transcend tribalism in humans as our social structures and interactions have become more complex, but there never would have truly been a time of "pre morality" in the sense you keep harping on for humans. "back in the day" would have been way, way before us, and morlaity would havegradually evolved in step with the evolution of social structures themselves.everything you've said in this thread is based on false premises stemming from ignorance about evolution. that has been explained to you multiple times, yet you keep repreatingthe same nonsensical statements over and over. obviously you're not really trying to convince anyone that you're right except yourself.

[Balloon guy 158]

there never was a time when homo sapiens or their predecessors didn't function in social units. there never was a time when basic empathetic behavior within the family/tribewouldn't have been beneficial for individuals. obviously empathetic behavior predates humans, and probably pre-dates all of our most recent ancestors. mammals have beenbehaving socially for tens of millions of years. animals have presumably been behaving in a self-sacraficing manner to ensure the survival of their young for hundreds of millions. those beneficial behaviors have been gradually morphing and expanding to transcend tribalism in humans as our social structures and interactions have become more complex, but there never would have truly been a time of "pre morality" in the sense you keep harping on for humans. "back in the day" would have been way, way before us, and morlaity would havegradually evolved in step with the evolution of social structures themselves.everything you've said in this thread is based on false premises stemming from ignorance about evolution. that has been explained to you multiple times, yet you keep repreatingthe same nonsensical statements over and over. obviously you're not really trying to convince anyone that you're right except yourself.

I didn't realize that we had such detailed records of the social structure of prehistoric man. Complex understanding of the social makeup of all examples of mankinds evolutions must have been dug up recently, because I'm pretty sure that so far all we have is some teeth, two femurs and a cave drawing with a mastodon.Did this happen over the weekend?I know I keep pointing out over and over that you are making statements with no facts and incredible amounts of poetic license, but you don't seem to be able to stop.I guess basing your worldview on a mostly faith based belief system causes this?

[Randy Reed 0]

You are right, but I am not talking about the current stage of our evolution where we have decided that darwinian evolution is passe and that now we do what we do because we do it. Over and over again there is a convenient overlooking of what stage of evolution that morality is in when I say it is not comfrotable with evolution.Go back to pre morality, which is a condition that existed in order for crow and Hitchens to make the statement that 'morality evolved',. So back in the day when morality hadn't evolved, when there were no right or wrongs, when pre-morality man walked with a purposeful gait and looked down on the weak...that would be the time when morality and darwinian evolution would be at odds with each other.Of course it's real convinient to see how morality evolved if you use morality to justify an action.

Are you just dense? Why don't you say, "back in the day before circles evolved, or squares evolved." You are just twising semantics as usual.

I didn't realize that we had such detailed records of the social structure of prehistoric man. Complex understanding of the social makeup of all examples of mankinds evolutions must have been dug up recently, because I'm pretty sure that so far all we have is some teeth, two femurs and a cave drawing with a mastodon.Did this happen over the weekend?I know I keep pointing out over and over that you are making statements with no facts and incredible amounts of poetic license, but you don't seem to be able to stop.I guess basing your worldview on a mostly faith based belief system causes this?

Yep, Sunday at 5:38PM . You must have missed it.

[crowTrobot 2]

I didn't realize that we had such detailed records of the social structure of prehistoric man. Complex understanding of the social makeup of all examples of mankinds evolutions must have been dug up recently, because I'm pretty sure that so far all we have is some teeth, two femurs and a cave drawing with a mastodon.Did this happen over the weekend?I know I keep pointing out over and over that you are making statements with no facts and incredible amounts of poetic license, but you don't seem to be able to stop.I guess basing your worldview on a mostly faith based belief system causes this?

there is plenty of evidence for tribalism in prehistoric homo sapiens, but that wasn't even the point. the point is you don't understand evolution even as a theory, andyour arguments that morality is contrary to evolution are based in grossly oversimplified mischaraterization of evolution and are nonsensical.if you at some point want to attempt to understand evolution at least *as a theory*, we might be able to start to have meaningful debate about evidence, but until you do that everythingyou say is just mentally whacking off.