Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

[Litmus]

You really are just a jerkoff troll.

I disagree

 

[Hume]

I disagree

Typical troll.

 

[Litmus]

everyone knows morality is good, except evil people, but they actually know but are pretending they don't know.

 

[ZenMode]

This is a SUPER interesting topic since it sounds like Sauer is possibly wrong. Moral instincts in many cases do appear to be instinctive to social animals like humans.

Indeed no one came to the conclusion "murder is wrong" through reason. No one came to the conclusion "theft is wrong" through reason. We see moral instincts in groups of other primates.

What do you mean by "reason"?

 

[ZenMode]

everyone knows morality is good, except evil people, but they actually know but are pretending they don't know.

Whose morality is good? Is Jeffrey Dahmer's morality good?

 

[Cypress]

sometimes there is just charity too.

another very moral thing.

doy.

your gotcha made the case stronger.

see how your energy is inverted?

why are you fighting goodness?

There is no absolute right and wrong without reference to a higher universal standard.

Thanks for conceding that morality isn't just based on mutual cooperation, mutual benefit, and Darwinian self preservation.

Animals have altruism and cooperation too - but that's not 'morality'. Nobody calls prairie dogs moral beings.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Seeking the good, seeking God, is indispensable for long term survival.

 

[Litmus]

Whose morality is good? Is Jeffrey Dahmer's morality good?

 

[Litmus]

There is no absolute right and wrong without reference to a higher universal standard.

Thanks for conceding that morality isn't just based on mutual cooperation, mutual benefit, and Darwinian self preservation.

Animals have altruism and cooperation too - but that's not 'morality'. Nobody calls prairie dogs moral beings.

it is morality.

 

[Cypress]

it is morality.

Now you're just flailing.

A lion pride will cooperate for hunting, but then the male will kill cubs of it's rival.

That's not a moral society. That is Darwinian self preservation and propagation of genes of the stronger animals.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no absolute right and wrong without reference to a higher universal standard.

Thanks for conceding that morality isn't just based on mutual cooperation, mutual benefit, and Darwinian self preservation.

Animals have altruism and cooperation too - but that's not 'morality'. Nobody calls prairie dogs moral beings.

"There is no absolute right and wrong without reference to a higher universal standard."

Why?

 

[AProudLefty]

Morality is based on evolution and survival.

 

[ZenMode]

Morality is based on evolution and survival.

Or, some aspects of survival happened to appear as expressions of morality.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

To answer the question "any good" requires a definition of "good", which is morality.

The question is analogous to: Do numbers actually prove any math?

 

[AProudLefty]

To answer the question "any good" requires a definition of "good", which is morality.

The question is analogous to: Do numbers actually prove any math?

We can count.

 

[Cypress]

Morality is based on evolution and survival.

Then morality is ultimately based on selfishness, because survival and evolution by natural selection is about propagating to one's own genetic information.

That very well may be correct, but then we should be very honest with ourselves and just recognize what we think of as morally admirable acts are really in the end just about selfishness.

 

[Cypress]

"There is no absolute right and wrong without reference to a higher universal standard."

Why?

If it comes from the mind, it is based on opinion, consensus, culture, individual choice.

If it comes from evolution by natural selection, there can't be absolute right and wrong. Evolution doesn't recognize evil or an absolute right and wrong.

That may very well be correct. But I don't know enough about the human brain and consciousness to explain adequately the spectrum of human morality. No one has ever explained to me how the actions of Oskar Schindler or Georgio Perlasca are the results of evolution by natural selection.

 

[goat]

If it comes from the mind, it is based on opinion, consensus, culture, individual choice.

If it comes from evolution by natural selection, there can't be absolute right and wrong. Evolution doesn't recognize evil or an absolute right and wrong.

That may very well be correct. But I don't know enough about the human brain and consciousness to explain adequately the spectrum of human morality. No one has ever explained to me how the actions of Oskar Schindler or Georgio Perlasca are the results of evolution by natural selection.

The Geneva Conventions made human morality into law. Genocide goes against human morality.

 

[Cypress]

The Geneva Conventions made human morality into law. Genocide goes against human morality.

The Geneva conventions are not adequately explained by evolution by natural selection. And biological science and evolution have nothing to say about evil and absolute right and wrong.

If anything, if one looks at the Nuremberg trials, the Declaration of Independence, Geneva conventions on human rights, they are all referencing a standard of ethical conduct which exists beyond governmental law, popular consensus, individual opinion.

 

[goat]

The Geneva conventions are not adequately explained by evolution by natural selection. And biological science and evolution have nothing to say about evil and absolute right and wrong.

If anything, if one looks at the Nuremberg trials, the Declaration of Independence, Geneva conventions on human rights, they are all referencing a standard of ethical conduct which exists beyond governmental law, popular consensus, individual opinion.

The US lost its moral standing in the world. It's as simple as that. There's no going back.