Morality Defined

Neoclitorus

Neoclitorus

Best
Morality is a set of behavioral standards and attitudes which facilitate voluntary and mutually beneficial relationships between individuals.

We don''t need a mystery man in the sky to tell us what these are. They are evident if we look at the social evolution of animals, including men.

Those who fall back on the god delusion do so to implement various forms of racism and elitism, and to provide rationalizations to do precisely what is NOT moral according to the first defintion.
 
An evolutionist cannot logically defend any particular moral value over another - except by their own point of view. And why should anyone accept an evolutionists point of view over anyone elses? After all an evolutionists claims that his npoint of view is no more than the result of chemical reactions in their brain. So why should their opinion be valid, logical or correct?
 
a11n said:
An evolutionist cannot logically defend any particular moral value over another - except by their own point of view. And why should anyone accept an evolutionists point of view over anyone elses? After all an evolutionists claims that his npoint of view is no more than the result of chemical reactions in their brain. So why should their opinion be valid, logical or correct?
Click to expand...


But they can identify social behaviors amongst individuals in a cooperating group that are mutually beneficial to all participants.
 
The idea that man evolved from an ape is completely false, and is
laughable.

It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
All hominid fossils are clearly human or clearly ape.
Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. The proposed mechanism is mutations, yet all observed mutations are information neutral or lossy
 
a11n said:
The idea that man evolved from an ape is completely false, and is
laughable.

It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
All hominid fossils are clearly human or clearly ape.
Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. The proposed mechanism is mutations, yet all observed mutations are information neutral or lossy
Click to expand...

So look at the cooperative behavior of hunting packs of canines of various species.

This definition bothers you because it competes with your religion based notions. It doesn't allow you to justify the various forms of elitism and racism you like so well.
 
Everything is meaningless and empty and relative but the only morality there is to get is from our own emotions which comes from our evolution.
 
Watermark said:
Everything is meaningless and empty and relative but the only morality there is to get is from our own emotions which comes from our evolution.
Click to expand...

Partially true. Love is the general emotion which if allowed to fluorish will result in behaviors consistent with my above definition of morality.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Partially true. Love is the general emotion which if allowed to fluorish will result in behaviors consistent with my above definition of morality.
Click to expand...


Love can result in divorce, lead poisioning, etc. Ohh you mean love of everyone not just hormonally driven love, which has recently been equated to insanity by experts ?

Then there is love of power....

Love of self....
 
Morality is contrary to Darwinist Theory. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, propagation of the species, are not attributes defined by morality, thus mankind has no inherent need for morality. It is social consciousness which gives mankind the unique attribute of morality, but it is not physiologically required for man to exist, in fact, it defies the theory of natural selection in most cases. What is moral for man is often not what is best for man or what enables man to best survive. Going solely on Darwin's theories, it is hard to understand what fundamental purpose Morality serves in our species.

Morality either exists outside of Religious belief or it doesn't. We can't argue both sides, but the fact remains, Religion for the most part, teaches Morality. The fundamental purpose of all Religion is to advocate moral human behavior. If you are amoral, or against morality, you are opposed to the teaching or purpose of morality as well, which seems to be precisely what you are saying in your rant.

Are you honest enough to admit you are amoral? I doubt it! You want to claim you are moral, but you can't be moral and be opposed to the teaching and advocation of morality, it is a contradiction. Plus, we can see your stance on morality issues, and you are always opposed to the "moral" side of the argument, so we clearly see you have no morality. Yet, you continue to insist that you do... why? That's what I wonder. Why do you suppose it is important for us to believe you are a moral person? It is very important for you, after all, you concocted this thread for just that purpose.
 
Just because evolution operates by the rules of natural selection doesn't mean haphazardly pinning this on a society and naming it "social darwinism" is the best way for the society to be. In fact, under the very nature of natural selection the people who evolved living like this obviously tended to live a lot longer than those who acted selfishly towards their fellow species. Morality is therefore in the best interests of humanity - according to natural selection.
 
Dixie said:
Are you honest enough to admit you are amoral? I doubt it! You want to claim you are moral, but you can't be moral and be opposed to the teaching and advocation of morality.
Click to expand...

If by "morality" you mean oppressing gays and pretending like sex is only supposed to be within marriage, then no, I do not support putting such superstition, which is only even believed by followers of Abrahamic faiths, into our innocent childrens head. They'd be much better off with their natural morality.
 
Watermark said:
Just because evolution operates by the rules of natural selection doesn't mean haphazardly pinning this on a society and naming it "social darwinism" is the best way for the society to be. In fact, under the very nature of natural selection the people who evolved living like this obviously tended to live a lot longer than those who acted selfishly towards their fellow species. Morality is therefore in the best interests of humanity - according to natural selection.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you haven't performed the Scientific Method on your hypothesis. In fact, the observations of countless other species of life would suggest no physiological reason for morality or moral behavior. Morality entails much more than 'acting selfishly toward your fellow man' as you put it, it encompasses everything that makes us humane, and indeed human. There is no physical basis for this behavior, it does not benefit the species to be moral creatures. History is full of martyrs for morality, as evidence it is often not in mans best interest for survival.

Natural selection suggests there must be something to morality, or it would have evolved out of us long ago, but it is clearly not beneficial to the natural selection process. I hypothesize it has something to do with Spirituality, since that too has not evolved out of us over time. These distinctions are unique to mankind, and according to science and the theories of Darwin, there must be a valid and legitimate purpose for them.
 
Watermark said:
If by "morality" you mean oppressing gays and pretending like sex is only supposed to be within marriage, then no, I do not support putting such superstition, which is only even believed by followers of Abrahamic faiths, into our innocent childrens head. They'd be much better off with their natural morality.
Click to expand...


Then you are immoral and do not value morality. Things are either moral or they're not, you aren't God or King, and don't get to make the determination for all others. You can accept morality and moral behavior or reject it, you can't do both, and claim to be moral. Oppressing gays? Is that what you call upholding moral principles and values? As I said, you are at war with Morality, you can't claim to also be Moral, it is a contradiction. You are Amoral, against morality in every form or fashion. You have a neat little package of feel-good things you keep on hand to toss out when someone challenges your moral character, but these are just for show, you would concede those as well if your bacon was on the line, and you know it.
 
Dixie said:
Sorry, but you haven't performed the Scientific Method on your hypothesis. In fact, the observations of countless other species of life would suggest no physiological reason for morality or moral behavior. Morality entails much more than 'acting selfishly toward your fellow man' as you put it, it encompasses everything that makes us humane, and indeed human. There is no physical basis for this behavior, it does not benefit the species to be moral creatures. History is full of martyrs for morality, as evidence it is often not in mans best interest for survival.

Natural selection suggests there must be something to morality, or it would have evolved out of us long ago, but it is clearly not beneficial to the natural selection process. I hypothesize it has something to do with Spirituality, since that too has not evolved out of us over time. These distinctions are unique to mankind, and according to science and the theories of Darwin, there must be a valid and legitimate purpose for them.
Click to expand...

It is clearly beneficial to the natural selection process or clearly it wouldn't be here.
 
a11n said:
The idea that man evolved from an ape is completely false, and is
laughable.

It is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.
All hominid fossils are clearly human or clearly ape.
Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. The proposed mechanism is mutations, yet all observed mutations are information neutral or lossy
Click to expand...

This is true.

Furthermore, if macroevolution is correct then surely we would observe incremental steps in the "evolutionary chain." After all, if archaeologists can find dinosaur fossils, which are supposedly 65 million years old, why can't they find the link between ape and man? Actually, there should be millions of links. Yet there are none to be found.

Macroevolution is a fantasy created by atheists because they don't want to be accountable to a higher power. Not surprisingly, evolution has historically been used to justify racism.

But it will go the way of Greek mythology, spontaneous generation, and flat-earth.

Of that I am certain.
 
Watermark said:
It is clearly beneficial to the natural selection process or clearly it wouldn't be here.
Click to expand...


Well, clearly if Darwin's theories are correct, there is a fundamental reason mankind exhibits morality and strives to be moral. There is no physiological reason, at least not any I am aware of, you may know of something, I can't think of any. It doesn't make men stronger or more virile, it doesn't relate to mating or reproduction, and most of the time, moral conviction results in persecution, so there is no advantage there. For all intents and purposes, it's a seemingly unneeded allele, yet it is curiously and uniquely present in man, along with spirituality, which serves as the philosophical teaching of morality in the form of religion and religious belief.

If this attribute of humanity is not physical and not required physiologically, then it must be a non-physical requirement. One thing is for certain, all men want to be seen as moral, regardless of their actions or words. You guys are classic examples, this thread is a classic example. Even though you constantly speak out against morality issues, you are here to defend your own personal morals, as if you need or require morality. I wonder why?
 
AssHatZombie said:
Morality is a set of behavioral standards and attitudes which facilitate voluntary and mutually beneficial relationships between individuals.

We don''t need a mystery man in the sky to tell us what these are. They are evident if we look at the social evolution of animals, including men.

Those who fall back on the god delusion do so to implement various forms of racism and elitism, and to provide rationalizations to do precisely what is NOT moral according to the first defintion.
Click to expand...

Morality is just an answer to the questions humans ask each other - "how are we to live?" It's perfectly easy to live a moral life while not having religious beliefs and it's perfectly easy to live a moral while having religious beliefs. That doesn't mean one set of morals is superior to another. But being religious does mean you're more likely to be bloody smug as has been demonstrated in this thread :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top