Does Morality Do Us Any Good?

[Cypress]

I'm not sure why this type of point animates you so. It IS still possible that the moral code is instinctual in humans and stopping a murder is equally valuable for the person.

You insist on saying there was "no mutual benefit" but you are 100% wrong. In fact it is kind of where your whole argument fails. There IS a mutual benefit. Each member of society is benefited by the security and safety of that society. If someone is going around and murdering other members of that society it is IN THE IMMEDIATE BENEFIT to EVERYONE in that society to stop the murder.

So your point is simply wrong from the outset. What follows from that is equally flawed for that reason.



Evil would be that which threatens our survival and the survival and propagation of our genes. Why is that a bad definition?



That's fine.




Wrong. Evil would be defined as that which threatens survival. As such biology has a WHOLE LOT to say about it.





Why assume that? Because many people don't like what is being found now early on?



Probably not. It will, however, require people to accept what science says even when it doesn't say what we want it to.

What you're describing is not evolution by natural selection.

Evolution by natural selection is not about saving the species.

It's about propagating one's own genetic information, even at the expense of weaker or more ill-suited members of one's own species. Evolution was never about ensuring every member of the species was protected and nurtured.

What you're doing is carving out special exemptions for humans from the accepted Darwinian tenets of evolution by natural selection.

That is a massive retreat from the way this thread started, where the atheists claimed morality was based on evolution and we really weren't basically any different from the other animals.

 

[Hume]

What you're describing is not evolution by natural selection.

Evolution by natural selection is not about saving the species.

It's about propagating one's own genetic information, even at the expense of weaker or more ill a suited members of one's own species. Evolution was never about ensuring every member of the species was protected and nurtured.

What you're doing is carving out special exemptions for humans from evolution by natural selection.

That is a massive retreat from the way this actually thread started, where the atheists claimed morality was based on evolution and we really weren't basically any different from the other animals.

Morality is wholly practical. Obvious to anyone not trying to convert others to their religion.

 

[Daylight63]

What you're describing is not evolution by natural selection.

Evolution by natural selection is not about saving the species.

It is about survival. That's it.

What you're doing is carving out special exemptions for humans from the accepted Darwinian tenets of evolution by natural selection.

Not at all. I am including humans in this as well.

That is a massive retreat from the way this thread started, where the atheists claimed morality was based on evolution and we really weren't basically any different from the other animals.

Not sure I understand what you mean. I know I've not retreated one whit in my position. It's pretty clear and soundly based on known science.

It may not be the actual explanation but given everything we have it certainly does a GREAT job of explaining everything leaving almost nothing unexplained.

 

[Cypress]

Morality is wholly practical. Obvious to anyone not trying to convert others to their religion.

What practical benefit was there to Oskar Schindler, Andrei Sakarov, and Georgio Perlasca when they took their actions of conscience in Nazi-occupied Germany and Soviet Russia?

 

[Hume]

What practical benefit was there to Oskar Schindler, Andrei Sakarov, and Georgio Perlasca when they took their actions in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia?

I don't know who those people are. And I probably do not care.

 

[Cypress]

I don't know who those people are. And I probably do not care.

The answer is that Schindler, Perlasca, Sahkarov did not gain any practical benefits from their acts of moral conscience, and instead they invited mortal risk, financial ruin, and imprisonment.

 

[Hume]

The answer is that Schindler, Perlasca, Sahkarov did not gain any practical benefits from their acts of moral conscience, and instead they invited mortal risk, financial ruin, and imprisonment.

God caused their action. Got it.

 

[Daylight63]

What practical benefit was there to Oskar Schindler, Andrei Sakarov, and Georgio Perlasca when they took their actions of conscience in Nazi-occupied Germany and Soviet Russia?

Are you seriously asking this question? Will you actually read a possible answer? Or will you simply ignore the possibility that there IS an answer?

Any individual in a functioning society who sees a murder or other injustice happening is primed by nature (instinct) to dislike the action they see happening. It is a visceral thought and feeling. Ergo STOPPING a murder or other injustice would serve to address the stimulus the person is feeling AND it serves the purpose of morality; to ensure the society is safe and stable for all members and since Oskar and Sakarov etc were all members of that society they were doing what they would be instinctively wired to do.
Meet the EXPLODING ANT: they have members of the colony who BLOW THEMSELVES UP to protect the colony. While I'm sure you'll note they don't do it out of "choice" per se, still it shows that Nature very much values members of a social group sacrificing themselves for the greater good of the group

https://www.science.org/content/article/exploding-ants-sacrifice-themselves-save-their-colony#:~:text=To%20protect%20their%20nest%20from,%2C%20in%20the%20process%2C%20themselves.

 

[Daylight63]

I don't know who those people are. And I probably do not care.

It's kind of fascinating that one could be so "cool" with their own ignorance. It's stunning to think someone DOESN'T know Oskar Schindler given that Speilberg did a ton to boost him in the public's consciousness not that long ago.

Sakarov is an interesting one. A real human rights champion but also prior to that integral to the development of the hydrogen bomb. Seemed that a lot of the early "inventors" of these dreadful technologies turned around and pushed for peace after seeing what they had unleashed. It's sobering and a reminder that sometimes the science is simply TOO TEMPTING not to take a nibble of. The tree of knowledge of good and evil still has a bumper crop to offer.

But you probably don't care. It's very important that you mention that because normally you care so deeply about all the topics in these forums here.

 

[Hume]

It's kind of fascinating that one could be so "cool" with their own ignorance. It's stunning to think someone DOESN'T know Oskar Schindler given that Speilberg did a ton to boost him in the public's consciousness not that long ago.

Sakarov is an interesting one. A real human rights champion but also prior to that integral to the development of the hydrogen bomb. Seemed that a lot of the early "inventors" of these dreadful technologies turned around and pushed for peace after seeing what they had unleashed. It's sobering and a reminder that sometimes the science is simply TOO TEMPTING not to take a nibble of. The tree of knowledge of good and evil still has a bumper crop to offer.

But you probably don't care. It's very important that you mention that because normally you care so deeply about all the topics in these forums here.

fuck off you stupid hate troll

 

[Cypress]

I know I've not retreated one whit in my position.

You started our claiming that moral instincts are basically the same in all social animals, including humans.

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.

But then you ended up carving out special exceptions for humans, because we have to explain the moral examples of Schindler, Perlasca, Deitrch Boenhoffer

 

[Daylight63]

You started our claiming that moral instincts are basically the same in all social animals

Nope. Never said that. What I said is that morality is predicated on things that benefit social animals. To that end we can see morality in social animals. Not necessarily the EXACT SAME morality as humans, but general analogues.

My point has not changed.

But then you ended up carving out special exceptions for humans, because we have the moral examples of Schindler, Perlasca, Deitrch Boenhoffer.

Quite the opposite actually. I just finished a post to that point as well.

I mean, humans DO appear to be special in a matter of DEGREE versus other animals. We are to my knowledge the only animals that we are certain have the ability to forecast alternative outcomes for a given action, which might moderate our ability to work with our against our natural instincts. And it certainly explains "moral teachers" who are really doing nothing more than helping us understand why we might wish to follow this or that instinct we already come wired with.

 

[Daylight63]

fuck off you stupid hate troll

I'm afraid not. You see, I actually DO care about the topic. Which is why I am discussing it. I am not playing with thread-killer trolls such as yourself on this one. I am desperately hoping you bow out for once instead of running it into the ground as you inevitably do to every thread.

 

[Hume]

I'm afraid not. You see, I actually DO care about the topic. Which is why I am discussing it. I am not playing with thread-killer trolls such as yourself on this one. I am desperately hoping you bow out for once instead of running it into the ground as you inevitably do to every thread.

I started the thread. You are mentally ill.

 

[Daylight63]

I started the thread. You are mentally ill.

...and so it begins.

 

[Hume]

...and so it begins.

Start your own thread you hate filled troll.

 

[Cypress]

Are you seriously asking this question? Will you actually read a possible answer? Or will you simply ignore the possibility that there IS an answer?

Any individual in a functioning society who sees a murder or other injustice happening is primed by nature (instinct) to dislike the action they see happening. It is a visceral thought and feeling. Ergo STOPPING a murder or other injustice would serve to address the stimulus the person is feeling AND it serves the purpose of morality; to ensure the society is safe and stable for all members and since Oskar and Sakarov etc were all members of that society they were doing what they would be instinctively wired to do.
Meet the EXPLODING ANT: they have members of the colony who BLOW THEMSELVES UP to protect the colony. While I'm sure you'll note they don't do it out of "choice" per se, still it shows that Nature very much values members of a social group sacrificing themselves for the greater good of the group

https://www.science.org/content/article/exploding-ants-sacrifice-themselves-save-their-colony#:~:text=To%20protect%20their%20nest%20from,%2C%20in%20the%20process%2C%20themselves.

Human civilizations existed for thousands of years which condoned slavery and ritual human sacrifice. You can't point to recent human history and say it represents natural instinctive human behavior.

Evolution by natural selection cannot explain any of this, because Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with ensuring that every member of the species is protected and nurtured. Biological evolution is about the propagation of one's own genetic information and the survival of favorable genetic mutations. Making sure the species as a whole thrives and survives plays no role in evolution.

 

[Cypress]

God caused their action. Got it.

No, the correct answer is we don't really know enough about the human mind to say what sets our moral conscience apart from lemurs and frogs.

 

[Hume]

No, the correct answer is we don't really know enough about the human mind to say what sets our moral conscience apart from lemurs and frogs.

Seems obvious. Morality is only about way we treat others. You prefer to make it mysterious.

 

[Daylight63]

Human civilizations existed for thousands of years which condoned slavery and ritual human sacrifice. You can't point to recent human history and say it represents natural instinctive human behavior.

Evolution by natural selection cannot explain any of this, because Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with ensuring that every member of the species is protected and nurtured. Biological evolution is about the propagation of one's own genetic information and the survival of favorable genetic mutations. Making sure the species as a whole thrives and survives plays no role in evolution.

That, of course, is your opinion, as we both understand. As mine is as well. However your "declarative" style makes it sound as if I'm simply making this all up.

I am not. I am by no means alone in any of this type of thinking:

Unselfish behavior has evolutionary reasons

Altruistic behavior is often seen as an exclusively human characteristic. However, behavioral research has uncovered numerous examples of altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom. In a new study, researchers at the University of Bern show that animals that help others “selflessly” to raise...

mediarelations.unibe.ch