|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4972 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality is a Logical Consequence of Evolution, not Creation | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Jumped Up Chimpanzee, interesting thread.
I hope to make a logical argument that morality (i.e. our understanding of good v bad / right v wrong) is a logical product of Evolution and not Creation. "good v bad / right v wrong" for whom? Evolution -- the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation -- by definition occurs within a breeding population. Natural Selection -- the differential success of hereditary traits in individual organisms that allow them to survive and breed -- by definition occurs at the individual organism level within a breeding population, and it causes frequency change in hereditary traits in the breeding population, with a overall result in increased fitness\adaptation of the population to the ecology. Conclusion: natural selection of hereditary traits in individuals results in a net fitness benefit to the breeding population.
One thing that is often not considered in these discussions is: what do we actually mean when we talk about right and wrong, or good and bad? (I’ll leave the term evil aside for the moment.) Generally speaking, something described as right/good is considered to be beneficial; whereas something described as wrong/bad is considered to be harmful. To whom or what it is beneficial or harmful will of course vary from situation to situation, and may be disputed. In evolutionary terms, this should be fairly clear: whatever provides a net benefit to the breeding population to increase fitness\adaptation to their ecology is "good" and whatever provides a net disadvantage to the breeding population to increase fitness\adaptation is "bad" and whatever is in between is neutral ground. Behavior between individuals within a breeding population is part of the ecology that individual organisms occupy. In a social species this includes behavior between all individuals within the social group. Conclusion: "good" behavior results in a net benefit to the social group and "bad" behavior results in a net disadvantage to the social group. In this context we can look at some behavior patterns and compare the behavior of an individual against the behavior of the group:
Thus sharing is moral, murder is immoral, execution is moral, defense of the social group is moral, defensive war is moral. But the equations change for different species with different social groupings, and as social groups grow and evolve. This also gets into concepts of "US" and "THEM" and the relative morality of behavior to members of "US" being different for members of "THEM" even though the specific behavior is the same. Note that for a non-social species, or an antisocial individual that rejects belonging to a social group, that everyone else is outside their social group. Thus the concept of morality only applies is social group settings.
There is no such thing as absolute evil or an entity called evil. Like good and bad, the word evil invokes an emotional response. Simply put, evil means very bad. We all have the understanding that something that is evil is very harmful. But, again, something can only be considered very harmful if there is a reason for considering it is in some way very harmful. The word evil is meaningless otherwise. From an evolutionary viewpoint there are just gradations of "bad" behavior, such as the difference between defensive war and genocide.
Morality is not something that any entity could cook up and then inject into us. Even if we consider that it is good or right to do something because it is God’s will, we are still considering the consequences of what that means. Is it beneficial to follow God’s will or is it harmful? That’s why people get so worked up about it. If it is neither beneficial nor harmful to follow God’s will, then what does it matter? Good or bad would both be viewed with equally cool indifference. It is my understanding, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of the bible, torah, koran, etc that the above examples of evolved im/moral behaviors are all provided with the predicted results in confusion over seeming contradictions when they are attempted to be portrayed universally.
So, even if there were a creator, he couldn’t have invented the concept of good and bad. Except that we have not derived what should be moral behavior according to an authoritarian source. It is entirely possible that the god/s set up the evolved behavior and then just record it. That should be a good start. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : add we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi hawkes nightmare, and welcome to the fray.
how could the eye "evolve"? By the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in an accumulative process. Asking this question is more a betrayal of a lack of imagination than anythiing else -- it is the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance: this question has been answered so many times it rates as a PRATT
quote: Note that there are many different kinds of eyes, from bugs to octopus to mammal, each showing independent evolution due to the differences involved in how the eyes operate.
it is an amazing thing. it sees things upside down, proccesses it, turns it right side up, and then sends the information to the brain. that is near impossible. the odds are phenomenal. The logical fallacy of assumed knowledge of the possibilities, coupled with a blatantly false assertion, a straw man that is in fact unlikely because it is wrong. The image is turned over by the brain and the brain does all the processing. This was proven in the 1900's iirc, by a scientist making glasses that inverted the image so that his eye retina would see the pattern right side up. As a result the perceived images were up-side-down. After two weeks of wearing these glasses, the image turned over so that the scientist saw the images right-side-up. When he removed the glasses it took another two weeks for the original processing to be restored. enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Peepul,
Richard Dawkins is wrong here. In fact completely backwards! Evolution says that morals have a basis in nature. Christians believe the basis is God. This is based on Darwinian = survival of the fittest, I think, in the crude sense that 'ruthlessness pays'. Dawkins is separating himself from social Darwinism here, ie domination of the weak by the strong, everyone being out for themselves. As I have yet to see the actual Dawkins quotes in context with references, and given the source so far is a creationist, it is likely a quote mine take from some creationist website, and totally untrustworthy (sorry Minority Report for the skepticism here, but this is a common fact about creationist statements). SeeLogic v Intelligent Design: Dawkins "Darwinism leads to Fascism" and Dawkins Flip-Flops on Link between Darwinism and Fascism | Evolution News and cheerful iconoclast: All Hail the Darwinian State What a surprise eh? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added another Edited by RAZD, : subtite we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Minority Report, thanks.
However, when I mentioned before about Hitler & stalin, they were actually trying to implement social darwinism, and those who supported them wanted to live in a 'facist state'. They thought evolution justified it, and would be a good thing. Hitler was also a christian, and he felt that this justified persecution of other religions.
Just because murders are recorded in the Bible does not also mean they are condoned by the Bible. They thought evolution justified it, and would be a good thing. Curiously, opinion, no matter who's opinion, is not reality. What we consistently find is that people that want to implement programs like these will find excuses to do so, whether it be in religious texts or scientific theories.
I just vaugely remembered reading about evolution and morality somewhere, and some Dawkins related quotes, so I just did a google search and copied the quotes from the first sites I could find them in. Yes I did read some of the comments on that site regarding the quote, and yes I can see how social darwinism is different from what Jumped up chimpanzee is propposing. Interesting that you didn't investigate further before posting - would you do the same for quotes related to the evils of biblical teaching? Or are you looking for confirmation bias in what you find? Social Darwinism - Wikipedia
quote: Darwinism has also been used to justify racism, and this is typical of the misunderstanding: if the social application of the theory were true then programs would not be necessary to implement, as they would occur naturally.
... and yes I can see how social darwinism is different from what Jumped up chimpanzee is propposing. My personal opinion on the evolution of morality is that our morality is first predicated on our being a social, sexual species, and therefore our concepts of morality will deal with social interactions and sexual interactions. A morality based on a tiger species, where there is no social interaction, would be different, likely with murder and rape being perceived as moral behavior. In bees the morality would likely all be based around serving the queen. The reason for this is that there would need to be a benefit to such behavior for it to be preserved. If the sacrifices for unselfish behavior within a group did not lead to a net benefit to the group and thus back to the individuals in the group, then the ones exhibiting unselfish behavior would be out bred and out survived by the selfish ones. These then become behavioral memes that are passed down through the generations, and evolve with the species. We also see in many experiments with primates that there are some basic behavior patterns that are compelling in this regard: The Times & The Sunday Times
quote: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...17_monkeyfairness.html
quote: For reference, capuchin monkeys are your typical "organ grinder" monkey, a fairly small species. From these studies I would conclude that such behavior is typical of all social primate species, which is also evidenced by the pictures of mutual grooming and troops posting lookouts while others forage, behavior that is not selfish, but can be regarded as enlightened self-interest. And when you get down to the basics of human morality, you find that it too is predicated on enlightened self-interest: the golden rule is pervasive in all cultures around the world, and it personifies enlightened self-interest. See What is the evolutionary advantage to religion? for some additional comments. It is a related topic eh? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024