Morality! Thorn in Darwin's side or not?

I don't think that I have said anything that contradicts that notion. Reproductive success is still the metric. I am saying that being able to make babies under a wider variety of conditions will lead to more babies. This seems very obvious to me.

I guess that more or less evolved is not the right terminology. A good analogy might be a general education compared to a specialized education. An art history major might be able to find a good job under some economies but a polymath could find a job anywhere at any time. Doesn't the polymath enjoy a definite advantage?

I get that.The evolved quality is the intellect that allows us to solve problems. Being able to solve problems without waiting for natural selection to do it must be on the plus side for making babies.Having a moral code is an attempt to solve problems. Those elements of our moral codes that show themselves to work (that is to help us make more babies) are retained over time. This retention is an objective filtering by means of natural selection.Arriving at the point where we can appreciate this fact allows us to accelerate the process by actively getting rid of those moral codes that are a hindrance to the robustness of our ability to survive as a species. A good example would be the elimination of moral ideas that promote unchecked breeding.

Simply by being an individual like John Lennon or Andy Warhol or Richard Feynman or Jesus Christ or Genghis Kahn or anybody else that you might happen to admire. It happens all the time.

Sorry, still not elaborate enough. How does my admiration of John Lennon get me to conform to his needs? Being dead and all, his needs are relatively few.And the connection to morality and/or evolution is becoming pretty tenuous too.

You do not see how John Lennon changed the morality of the world? Or Gloria Steinman or Rachel Carson or Rosa Parks? It is not so much about conforming to their needs as it is about agreeing with their ideas. This is no tenuous connection. These are clear examples of individuals changing the morality of their society.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. I had to look back at what point you're trying to make.In Message 399 you said:

quote:

---

I agree that the impetus for morality comes from the individual but I wonder if it is a willingness to conform to society. I would say that it is an attempt to get society to conform to the needs of the individual.

---

I don't see the changes initiated by John Lennon, et al. as having anything at all to do with their needs. Members of society recognized that their ideas were good for society and changed their individual behaviour for the good of society. They became willing to conform to a new society that was envisioned by John Lennon, et al. (Imagine). It was "of" John Lennon but not "for" John Lennon.

On the plus side yes, but if selection is not involved, then we are talking about something other than evolution. I don't buy it. People who don't follow our moral code get shunned or locked up. Those kinds of penalties are not natural selection. I'm not convinced that morality is inheritable in any substantial way at all. For humans a model in which ethics and morals are learned seems to work pretty well.

Learned? From what?What law is the basis for human laws if not the law of God?Thou shalt not, disrespect parents, kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, and envy.If you find a better one from inflatable worm world, let us know.

Yet Jesus disrespected his mother and appropriated group funds for his own oils.The only basis for morality should be learned behaviors and empathy.The God found in the Bible is often amoral at best and immoral at times needing to be chastened and corrected by a human.Have you ever even read the Bible Colbard?

I don't need to, because nearly everyone here can already tell me what I know and don't know, I'm not sure at which Uni they studied, but I feel honored at best.Sounds like you have been coached by men of the apron.Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

I don't think anyone has even a clue what you know but what you don't know is pretty obvious.You don't know anything about the Bible or Christianity or Science or Honesty or Morality or evidence or debate or discussion for starters.If you did then you would know that the Bible says mankind has the same capability to know right and wrong as God does thanks to the great gift given in Genesis 2&3 fable.

Er ... humans? That would kind of explain why you call them human laws.I mean, for example, you ask first of all where the law against disrespecting our parents comes from. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it comes from our parents. Indeed, we have no secular law enforcing it.Thou shalt not kill? Well, that's 'cos we all of us don't want to be killed.And so on.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Experience. The human race is self-educated in terms of morality. If morality was "imparted" by some omniscient, omnipotent, omnivorous alien overlord, it ought to work better than it does.

Me too There are a couple.Our moral behaviour is born out of the eons long evolutionary process that selected those behaviours that helped us to survive as a species. I am saying that these selections can be viewed as objectively good.I was also making the point that some species are more likely to survive by virtue of their ability to survive across a range of environments and that this should put them higher up on a scale of fitness. That is to say that they are more robust. Being able to adapt increases our range. Morality is one of the tools that we use to adapt our behaviour to match the environment.A third point was that the individual is the discreet source of morality and that some individuals act as a lightning rod or lens for individual beliefs that reach a threshold.So, armed with an objectively established goal, as individuals we can promote a rational morality.