Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

goat said:
Most people I know are complacent and complicit. They don't make waves or speak against groupthink.
Click to expand...
most people are evil.

Matthew 7:13-14 NIV - The Narrow and Wide Gates - "Enter - Bible Gateway​


https://www.biblegateway.com › passage › ?search=Matthew 7:13-14&version=NIV
The Narrow and Wide Gates. 13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
 
Litmus said:
you don't fucking get it.

it's rational to be moral.

high trust societies have heightened cooperation.

hight trust comes from basic morality.... you fucking cretin.

you just hate peace and cooperation. you're a demented war machine shill.
Click to expand...
Do you have a higher morality than Cypress? I do.
 
Litmus said:
you don't fucking get it.

it's rational to be moral.

high trust societies have heightened cooperation.

hight trust comes from basic morality.... you fucking cretin.

you just hate peace and cooperation. you're a demented war machine shill.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to join the team that says ant morality is basically the same as human moral conscience. Ants sacrificing themselves to protect the genetic information the Queen ant possess is completely understood through Darwinian evolutionary principles, and is not an example of ants being like Oskar Schindler
 
Cypress said:
I'm not going to join the team that says ant morality is basically the same as human moral conscience. Ants sacrificing themselves to protect the genetic information the Queen ant possess is completely understood through Darwinian evolutionary principles, and is not an example of ants being like Oskar Schindler
Click to expand...
so is cooperation.
 
Cypress said:
Anyone can spend ten minutes googling to find sources that support a preconceived conclusion.
Click to expand...

Oh I most assuredly am Googling. Because I'm not an evolutionary biologist. But at least I'm finding something to support my position.

It's really easy to have a position made up of simple declarative sentences without any evidence to support them. I like the harder task of supporting my position.

Cypress said:
That's called confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

No, I'm finding references which support my position. You are free to find references to support yours that show mine to be in error. Simply stating that I'm in error is insufficient.

Cypress said:
I'm not even sure they "support" you, without further investigation.
Click to expand...

You could read the snippets I post and highlighted bits.

Cypress said:
I have actually read the ancient literature and spent countless hours reading and listening to a wide range of subject matter experts. I did not approach this with a preconceived notion. I had to be convinced after much study and reflection.
Click to expand...

So it should be no problem for you to show the errors in my position by reference to your readings. Or you could address any of the points I actually raised rather than simply decreeing them "preposterous".

It's an approach.
 
Daylight63 said:
Oh I most assuredly am Googling. Because I'm not an evolutionary biologist. But at least I'm finding something to support my position.

It's really easy to have a position made up of simple declarative sentences without any evidence to support them. I like the harder task of supporting my position.



No, I'm finding references which support my position. You are free to find references to support yours that show mine to be in error. Simply stating that I'm in error is insufficient.



You could read the snippets I post and highlighted bits.



So it should be no problem for you to show the errors in my position by reference to your readings. Or you could address any of the points I actually raised rather than simply decreeing them "preposterous".

It's an approach.
Click to expand...
To me, saying that mutually advantageous cooperation is about self-interest not about morality is self-evident. It doesn't require Googling for supporting sources.

For me, it is self-evident saying that ants sacrificing themselves to protect the colony's genetic information carried by the queen ant is completely explained by Darwinian evolution, and is not a poignant insect example of Oskar Schindler. It is so self-evident it does not require Googling for sources.

Me saying that there is no such thing as an equivalency between ant 'morality' and human moral conscience is so self-evident it does not require Googling for corroborating internet sources.
 
Cypress said:
To me, saying that mutually advantageous cooperation is about self-interest not about morality is self-evident. It doesn't require Googling for supporting sources.

For me, it is self-evident saying that ants sacrificing themselves to protect the colony's genetic information carried by the queen ant is completely explained by Darwinian evolution, and is not a poignant insect example of Oskar Schindler. It is so self-evident it does not require Googling for sources.

Me saying that there is no such thing as an equivalency between ant 'morality' and human moral conscience is so self-evident it does not require Googling for corroborating internet sources.
Click to expand...

I prefer the science. It always makes more sense to me.
 
Daylight63 said:
I prefer the science. It always makes more sense to me.
Click to expand...
My posts have been pregnant with science and history: i.e., natural selection, genetics of ant colonies, evolutionary altruism in animals, social standards, literature, and anthropology of ancient civilizations in Europe, Near East, Mesoamerica.

I just don't have to Google because I have spent years reading about these topics and retaining and integrating that knowledge.
 
Cypress said:
My posts have been pregnant with science and history: i.e., natural selection, genetics of ant colonies, evolutionary altruism in animals, social standards, literature, and anthropology of ancient civilizations in Europe, Near East, Mesoamerica.

I just don't have to Google because I have spent years reading about these topics and retaining and integrating that knowledge.
Click to expand...

I definitely need to google because I am not a biologist and I actually want to support my positions rather than merely decreeing that science is "preposterous".

I will have to take your word for the pregnancy of your posts with science. I certainly DID see a lot of philosophy which makes sense. This is often a philosophical conversation. That's what makes it so difficult as a conversation. Those like yourself who prefer the philosophical approach and the wonder and those like me who still find the wonder but like the scientific explanation.
 
Daylight63 said:
I definitely need to google because I am not a biologist and I actually want to support my positions rather than merely decreeing that science is "preposterous".

I will have to take your word for the pregnancy of your posts with science. I certainly DID see a lot of philosophy which makes sense. This is often a philosophical conversation. That's what makes it so difficult as a conversation. Those like yourself who prefer the philosophical approach and the wonder and those like me who still find the wonder but like the scientific explanation.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any need to Google scientific studies, because it is manifestly self-evident ants do not have a moral conscience, while Oscar Schindler did.
Ants are acting on evolutionary instinct to protect the colony's genetic information carried by the queen ant. Oscar Schindler risked his life for strangers who were in no position to maintain and propagate any of his genetic information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top