Morality Defined

[Onceler]

"Separator? You mean something makes us different from all other creatures which evolved? I thought we gained all of our attributes from evolution"

You love your little "gotcha" points. It's what makes you so silly.

Our ability to reason & make moral choices is a separator in the same way that gills are a separator for fish. It's the adaptation that allowed an otherwise fairly soft, vulnerable lifeform survive.

It's also what makes your animal comparisons seem almost child-like. As always, your ignorance & weird logic are the most notable aspects of your arguments.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

"Separator? You mean something makes us different from all other creatures which evolved? I thought we gained all of our attributes from evolution"

You love your little "gotcha" points. It's what makes you so silly.

Our ability to reason & make moral choices is a separator in the same way that gills are a separator for fish. It's the adaptation that allowed an otherwise fairly soft, vulnerable lifeform survive.

It's also what makes your animal comparisons seem almost child-like. As always, your ignorance & weird logic are the most notable aspects of your arguments.

Well see, the thing is, fish gills are a physical characteristic, one that was required for the survival of the species. Morality is a behavior found in humans, with no indication of any physical requirement for survival of the species, so they are two different things and not comparable.

I think the most notable aspect of my argument is the fact you can't refute it with logic or reasoning, much less, scientific evidence.

 

[Onceler]

Well see, the thing is, fish gills are a physical characteristic, one that was required for the survival of the species. Morality is a behavior found in humans, with no indication of any physical requirement for survival of the species, so they are two different things and not comparable.

I think the most notable aspect of my argument is the fact you can't refute it with logic or reasoning, much less, scientific evidence.

No, the thing is, an advanced neocortex layer is a physical characteristic in the same way that fish gills are.

See how ignorant you are on this topic?

It is with this extra physical layer that we have the reasoning capability to contemplate things like right & wrong, and other aspects of morality. Again, this is what makes your comparison to lions & other animals so silly, and stupid.

See how easy your amazing argument was to refute?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is with this extra physical layer that we have the reasoning capability to contemplate things like right & wrong, and other aspects of morality.

You are explaining how humans are different from other animals, something that is obvious. You are failing to explain WHY humans have this characteristic or how it evolved, because you don't have an answer. The neocortex is not responsible for mankind having faith which was required to trust and foster morality to begin with. Those are behavioral characteristics, not physical. Sorry, you are the one ignorant on the subject.

 

[Onceler]

It evolved as everything else does, though natural selection. The ability to reason gave us an important competitive advantage over other animals who were better equipped to survive physically.

The ability to decide between right & wrong was a byproduct of our enhanced thinking capabilities; not necessary for survival, but something we gained with the advanced neocortex. There are plenty of atheists who know the difference between right & wrong, at least in terms of what even someone like you would deem as a basic moral code, and choose to live their lives that way. That alone makes your whole "theory" - which is incredibly simplistic and ignorant of factual information, anyway - kind of dumb...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It evolved as everything else does, though natural selection. The ability to reason gave us an important competitive advantage over other animals who were better equipped to survive physically.

The ability to decide between right & wrong was a byproduct of our enhanced thinking capabilities; not necessary for survival, but something we gained with the advanced neocortex. There are plenty of atheists who know the difference between right & wrong, at least in terms of what even someone like you would deem as a basic moral code, and choose to live their lives that way. That alone makes your whole "theory" - which is incredibly simplistic and ignorant of factual information, anyway - kind of dumb...

You are still not explaining, even with the rationalized theory for why humans think cognitively, why we would need, want, or require Morality. You mention "right and wrong" but what purpose would such determinations have on an emerging species? And what determined this "right and wrong" you speak of? Nature would say it is "right" for me to kill you and eat you if I am hungry. So there must be some basis for the idea of what is "right" and what is "wrong" other than nature.

It seems to me, you want to gloss over the question by posing a different question, and answering that instead. Nice try, but it will not suffice. You've not explained anything except (maybe) how the human mind is able to think rationally and with reason. I think we already knew this, so you bring nothing new to the debate. The question is, WHY did man rationalize Morality, and how could this have been done without trust, which required faith? And finally, you need to reconcile the issue of this non-physical attribute mankind has, which has no physical reason to exist as far as propagation of the species, and seems to defy the theories of Darwin, unless there is a non-physical purpose for Morality, which was fundamental to the propagation of man.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You are still not explaining, even with the rationalized theory for why humans think cognitively, why we would need, want, or require Morality. You mention "right and wrong" but what purpose would such determinations have on an emerging species?

Increased survivability.

And what determined this "right and wrong" you speak of? Nature would say it is "right" for me to kill you and eat you if I am hungry.

Social animals have learned that sometimes cooperation is better than eating each other.

So there must be some basis for the idea of what is "right" and what is "wrong" other than nature.

Yes. Increased survivability.

It seems to me, you want to gloss over the question by posing a different question, and answering that instead. Nice try, but it will not suffice. You've not explained anything except (maybe) how the human mind is able to think rationally and with reason. I think we already knew this, so you bring nothing new to the debate. The question is, WHY did man rationalize Morality, and how could this have been done without trust, which required faith?

Trust doesn't necessarily require faith.

And finally, you need to reconcile the issue of this non-physical attribute mankind has, which has no physical reason to exist as far as propagation of the species, and seems to defy the theories of Darwin, unless there is a non-physical purpose for Morality, which was fundamental to the propagation of man.

We can think abstractly and we can reason through how it may be better have someone to help you hunt, and to NOT kill and eat that person immediately. Our non physical attribute of reasoning helps us all the time in the physical realm, except for your, your reasoning is probably a hindrance in your life.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Increased survivability.

Social animals have learned that sometimes cooperation is better than eating each other.

Yes. Increased survivability.

You keep maintaining this argument, but you can't support it. There is nothing about Morality that increases survivability. In fact, most examples of moral conviction have resulted in certain death. Social animals are not necessarily moral, you make this connection, but again, you have no basis for such a comparison. Cooperation is not Morality, again, you make a comparison that is invalid.

Trust doesn't necessarily require faith.

Yes, trust requires faith. Without faith, you can not have trust. It is impossible to have trust, and not have faith. In fact, trust is a form of faith, you trust (have faith) that something is 'good' or 'bad' or that someone else will see it the same as you. You are getting good at making these bold statements without anything to back them up.

We can think abstractly and we can reason through how it may be better have someone to help you hunt, and to NOT kill and eat that person immediately. Our non physical attribute of reasoning helps us all the time in the physical realm, except for your, your reasoning is probably a hindrance in your life.

We can think abstractly and reason, but in order to establish a moral code, we must first trust, which requires faith. You are now changing your argument to explain how 'reasoning' is beneficial to the survival of the species, and I have never argued that. We are discussing Morality, not reasoning. Please give me some examples of how Morality is physically beneficial to the species, and also, how we obtained this morality without faith and trust?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

You keep maintaining this argument, but you can't support it. There is nothing about Morality that increases survivability.

Of course there is. If people can standardize a code of behavior between themselves, then they can cooperate on greater endeavors which benefit all of them, instead of always being paranoid and distrustful of each other, and therefore, unable to cooperate on greater projects.

In fact, most examples of moral conviction have resulted in certain death. Social animals are not necessarily moral, you make this connection, but again, you have no basis for such a comparison. Cooperation is not Morality, again, you make a comparison that is invalid.

Cooperation is the goal of moral codes. And cooperation usually helps all members involved.

Yes, trust requires faith. Without faith, you can not have trust. It is impossible to have trust, and not have faith. In fact, trust is a form of faith, you trust (have faith) that something is 'good' or 'bad' or that someone else will see it the same as you. You are getting good at making these bold statements without anything to back them up.

Trust does not require faith.

We can think abstractly and reason, but in order to establish a moral code, we must first trust, which requires faith. You are now changing your argument to explain how 'reasoning' is beneficial to the survival of the species, and I have never argued that. We are discussing Morality, not reasoning. Please give me some examples of how Morality is physically beneficial to the species, and also, how we obtained this morality without faith and trust?

No. You can establish the code through a reasoning process, and then trust after people have affirmed that your code is, in fact, mutually beneficial.

 

[Onceler]

I don't understand the emphasis on "need to survive." Mutations are rampant throughout history. We kept those which were needed to survive, but some that made no difference one way or the other also made it through the mix. The appendix is a notable example

To not understand this basically is admitting that you really don't have a grasp on natural selection & evolution. It would be easier if you'd just admit that, instead of publicly working through all of this nonsense.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

I don't understand the emphasis on "need to survive." Mutations are rampant throughout history. We kept those which were needed to survive, but some that made no difference one way or the other also made it through the mix. The appendix is a notable example

To not understand this basically is admitting that you really don't have a grasp on natural selection & evolution. It would be easier if you'd just admit that, instead of publicly working through all of this nonsense.

You don't understand an emphasis on "need to survive"?
A. why is it in quotes?
B. Are you a moron?

What do mutations have to do with behaviors that help individuals cooperate, thus increasing the survivability of individuals within the cooperating group?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let me explain to you pinheads why it is so difficult for you to make your case. Morality, for the most part, is a selfless condition. It is not something that delivers a direct benefit to you, in most cases it is a sacrifice of some benefit to you, for the betterment of mankind. This is why Morality defies the Darwin theory of natural selection, and is not the product of physical evolution.

We do have Morality, there is no mistake there, but how it came about is and interesting question. For those who believe there is no God and we all evolved from single-cell organisms, it's damn near impossible to explain how man could have developed morality. The very nature of moral behavior is detrimental to physical survival most of the time, so there is no evolutionary basis for such an attribute.

We can visualize early man contemplating morality, reasoning how it might be better to cooperate and trust each other, or respect a mutual moral code, but these things would require trust and faith at some point, in order to put them into action. It is hard to imagine how any moral contemplation could have come to fruition without trust and faith.

This thread is full of speculations, some have argued that trust and faith are developed and earned over time, others maintain we are simply born with the 'default' instinct to trust. If trust and faith are developed over time, it is impossible for morality to have been a product of the evolution process, because it didn't exist. How could we have obtained through evolution, an attribute that did not previously exist, and is not physically fundamental to the propagation of the species? If we are simply born with the inherent nature to trust, then we are also born with the inherent nature to have faith. To me, this is plausible, but it would lend a great deal of credibility to spiritual belief, because that would have to be the logical basis for any faith.

 

[Onceler]

"For those who believe there is no God and we all evolved from single-cell organisms, it's damn near impossible to explain how man could have developed morality."

That sums up what religion is to you. "I can't explain it, therefore it must be God." They used to feel that way about the sun, also.

I always feel bad for you when you make these arguments. I believe in a moral code and treating my fellow human beings well because it's something I want to do. It's so weird to hear someone say that the only reason they even consider it is to avoid some sort of eternal damnation, and without that threat they'd go on some sort of killing spree...

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Let me explain to you pinheads why it is so difficult for you to make your case. Morality, for the most part, is a selfless condition.

No. it's not. We also benefit from the morality of others.

It is not something that delivers a direct benefit to you, in most cases it is a sacrifice of some benefit to you, for the betterment of mankind.

Elitist hogwash.

This is why Morality defies the Darwin theory of natural selection, and is not the product of physical evolution.

It is the product of social evolution, which has some physical components to it, like a brain which can imagine itself in the place of others.

We do have Morality, there is no mistake there, but how it came about is and interesting question. For those who believe there is no God and we all evolved from single-cell organisms, it's damn near impossible to explain how man could have developed morality.

It's not impossible. I've done so. Morality is behaviors which facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation between individuals.

The very nature of moral behavior is detrimental to physical survival most of the time, so there is no evolutionary basis for such an attribute.

No. It's not. It allows us to focus on greater cooperative efforts instead of being paranoid all the time.

We can visualize early man contemplating morality, reasoning how it might be better to cooperate and trust each other, or respect a mutual moral code, but these things would require trust and faith at some point, in order to put them into action. It is hard to imagine how any moral contemplation could have come to fruition without trust and faith.

Trust, but not faith, necessarily.

This thread is full of speculations, some have argued that trust and faith are developed and earned over time, others maintain we are simply born with the 'default' instinct to trust. If trust and faith are developed over time, it is impossible for morality to have been a product of the evolution process, because it didn't exist. How could we have obtained through evolution, an attribute that did not previously exist, and is not physically fundamental to the propagation of the species? If we are simply born with the inherent nature to trust, then we are also born with the inherent nature to have faith. To me, this is plausible, but it would lend a great deal of credibility to spiritual belief, because that would have to be the logical basis for any faith.

We have a version of morality instilled in us by parents, and society, usually. That morality generally holds up to the point where people start saying the most moral thing is to sellout americans for profit, based on internationalist immorality. Sometimes the moral codes need to be reexamined for adherence to the prime reason for morality: mutual benefit. Assholes like you do not want this analysis to take place, and instead you would rather use some spiritual psychobabble to short circuit rational appraisal of the memes presented as "morality" by the theocrats and fascists in control of our institutions of cultural transmission.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Of course there is. If people can standardize a code of behavior between themselves, then they can cooperate on greater endeavors which benefit all of them, instead of always being paranoid and distrustful of each other, and therefore, unable to cooperate on greater projects.

Oh, I understand how morality is beneficial to man, I think that is apparent. How is morality condusive to the propagation of the species? That is the question. The scenario you lay out has one minor flaw, it required faith and trust! By "standardize a code of behavior between themselves" would that be something like... oh, i don't know... Oraganized Religion, maybe? It seems to me you are most vehemently opposed to people who "standardize a code of behavior between themselves" and want to destroy them.

Trust does not require faith.

Yes, TRUST REQUIRES FAITH! Please give me just ONE example of trust that does not require faith! Trust, for all intents and purposes, IS Faith! Trust without faith become Distrust! You simply can not TRUST without having some FAITH! It's impossible, and it doesn't matter how many times you pop off some nonesense to the contrary. That is a fact!

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Dixie = Fisted Hard

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Oh, I understand how morality is beneficial to man, I think that is apparent. How is morality condusive to the propagation of the species? That is the question. The scenario you lay out has one minor flaw, it required faith and trust! By "standardize a code of behavior between themselves" would that be something like... oh, i don't know... Oraganized Religion, maybe? It seems to me you are most vehemently opposed to people who "standardize a code of behavior between themselves" and want to destroy them.



Yes, TRUST REQUIRES FAITH! Please give me just ONE example of trust that does not require faith! Trust, for all intents and purposes, IS Faith! Trust without faith become Distrust! You simply can not TRUST without having some FAITH! It's impossible, and it doesn't matter how many times you pop off some nonesense to the contrary. That is a fact!

Let's say you didn't trust someone, but over time they earned your trust strictly through observable behaviors. That's trust without faith. I'm not saying that each individual goes through this. Sometimes we just accept the codes handed to us by society. But in moments of unsureness, we should conduct an analysis according to the standard of mutual benefit to determine what's actually moral, and when liars are trying to screw us over.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. it's not. We also benefit from the morality of others.

The selflessness of others, yes.

Elitist hogwash.

Not elitist at all, it's just a fact of the matter. Most morality is a personal sacrifice for the greater benefit of man. Most people do not behave morally because they realize some personal benefit from it, they do so because they believe it benefits mankind to behave morally.

It is the product of social evolution, which has some physical components to it, like a brain which can imagine itself in the place of others.

Ah... Human Empathy and Compassion! Both byproducts of Morality! I'm sorry, but the byproducts of Morality do not explain how Morality came to be.

It's not impossible. I've done so. Morality is behaviors which facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation between individuals.

And I have explained how your definition also fits Wolf Pack Mentality and Street Gangs. Maybe you are trying to argue that Atheists have the 'morality' of a wolfpack or streetgang, is that what you are saying?

No. It's not. It allows us to focus on greater cooperative efforts instead of being paranoid all the time.

Paranoia is the result of distrust. To not be paranoid, one would have to have faith and trust. What did man have faith in to trust others would obey the moral code? You don't have a scientific or evolutionary explanation, because there isn't one.

Trust, but not faith, necessarily.

It is impossible to trust without faith. That is precisely what it means to trust, to have faith in what you believe. If you do not have faith in what you believe, you can not say you trust it. It is not trustworthy, if you don't have faith in it. Please tell me you aren't really that stupid!

We have a version of morality instilled in us by parents, and society, usually. That morality generally holds up to the point where people start saying the most moral thing is to sellout americans for profit, based on internationalist immorality. Sometimes the moral codes need to be reexamined for adherence to the prime reason for morality: mutual benefit. Assholes like you do not want this analysis to take place, and instead you would rather use some spiritual psychobabble to short circuit rational appraisal of the memes presented as "morality" by the theocrats and fascists in control of our institutions of cultural transmission.

Ah... so now we get to your REAL argument! You don't like the Moral code of others, and you feel spiritual belief is responsible, so you want to destroy spiritual belief so your particular moral code (that of a wolf pack) can be implemented. Why didn't you just say so? I get it now!

You didn't really mean to get in over your head on a discussion of how Morality originated, or how it has been fostered and taught through all these years. You just wanted to throw out a baseless argument against religion by claiming Morality can exist without it. The big problem is, you can't prove it, and you haven't provided any basis of support for this notion. There is no physical reason for Morality, no Darwinist concept of how Morality formed in man, an no explanation for why this non-required attribute is so profoundly important to man, even the Atheist man. Every road you go down, leads you to Trust and Faith. For some reason, you don't want to acknowledge Trust and Faith had to precede Morality of any kind in man, it is impossible otherwise. The reason Trust and Faith bother you so much, is because you know and understand, these are the basis for all Religious belief. Oooo... can't have that messing up your argument, can we?

I feel sorry for you, because you are an ignorant man. You do not realize how your conscience has been brainwashed. For whatever reason, someone has hurt you in life, and you haven't found forgiveness. Maybe you were molested or beaten as a child, maybe you didn't have a father or mother, or you thought they hated you. Something in the course of your life has polluted your mind and blinded you to the original conscious awareness you were born with. I can't fix you, no one can fix you, but you can fix yourself, the answers are within you, but you are too ignorant to realize this.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Let's say you didn't trust someone, but over time they earned your trust strictly through observable behaviors. That's trust without faith. I'm not saying that each individual goes through this. Sometimes we just accept the codes handed to us by society. But in moments of unsureness, we should conduct an analysis according to the standard of mutual benefit to determine what's actually moral, and when liars are trying to screw us over.

There is no trust without faith, sorry. In your example, you said yourself, you observed behaviors, and your trust was earned. This means, you eventually had faith that you could trust. You believed (had faith) that the person was worthy of your trust. Now, maybe you mean you deceived someone into thinking you trusted them when you really didn't. But that would be a bit immoral, wouldn't it?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The selflessness of others, yes.

It's not selflessness when there is mutual benefit.

Not elitist at all, it's just a fact of the matter. Most morality is a personal sacrifice for the greater benefit of man.

That's martyrdom, or stupidity, depending on how your want to look at it.

Most people do not behave morally because they realize some personal benefit from it, they do so because they believe it benefits mankind to behave morally.

Bullshit.

Ah... Human Empathy and Compassion! Both byproducts of Morality! I'm sorry, but the byproducts of Morality do not explain how Morality came to be.

Their byproducts of a brain devleoped enough to be empathetic. Morality is an evolved behavior.

And I have explained how your definition also fits Wolf Pack Mentality and Street Gangs. Maybe you are trying to argue that Atheists have the 'morality' of a wolfpack or streetgang, is that what you are saying?

But street gangs are not moral because victimizing others is not benefiicial to those others, hence the benefit is not mutual, hence it is not moral.

Paranoia is the result of distrust. To not be paranoid, one would have to have faith and trust. What did man have faith in to trust others would obey the moral code? You don't have a scientific or evolutionary explanation, because there isn't one.

Trust definitely, either through faith in a presented moral code, or through trial and error and a finding that cooperation works, and that when you screw people over for short term personal benefit, they generally will no longer cooperate willingly.

It is impossible to trust without faith. That is precisely what it means to trust, to have faith in what you believe. If you do not have faith in what you believe, you can not say you trust it. It is not trustworthy, if you don't have faith in it. Please tell me you aren't really that stupid!

Yes. It is possible to have trust without faith.

Ah... so now we get to your REAL argument! You don't like the Moral code of others, and you feel spiritual belief is responsible, so you want to destroy spiritual belief so your particular moral code (that of a wolf pack) can be implemented. Why didn't you just say so? I get it now!

Some spiritual belief is consistent with actual morality, some is not.

You didn't really mean to get in over your head on a discussion of how Morality originated, or how it has been fostered and taught through all these years.

Over my head? I'm in a puddle here. You're so not competent at arguing.

You just wanted to throw out a baseless argument against religion by claiming Morality can exist without it.

It is not baseless. Morality can exist without religion.

The big problem is, you can't prove it, and you haven't provided any basis of support for this notion.

Yes. I have repeatedly. You just keep ignoring it.

There is no physical reason for Morality, no Darwinist concept of how Morality formed in man, an no explanation for why this non-required attribute is so profoundly important to man, even the Atheist man.

Man, in cooperation, can hunt better and each individual gets more meat. That's a physical reason. Cooperating to build complex shelters is another physical benefit.

Every road you go down, leads you to Trust and Faith.

Not even close, idiotstick.

For some reason, you don't want to acknowledge Trust and Faith had to precede Morality of any kind in man, it is impossible otherwise.

We had an element of trust in us before we were ever even men. Pack animals trust to a degree. Even animals exhibit social cooperation.

The reason Trust and Faith bother you so much, is because you know and understand, these are the basis for all Religious belief. Oooo... can't have that messing up your argument, can we?

they don't bother me. Faith is just not necessary to have morality.

I feel sorry for you, because you are an ignorant man. You do not realize how your conscience has been brainwashed. For whatever reason, someone has hurt you in life, and you haven't found forgiveness. Maybe you were molested or beaten as a child, maybe you didn't have a father or mother, or you thought they hated you. Something in the course of your life has polluted your mind and blinded you to the original conscious awareness you were born with. I can't fix you, no one can fix you, but you can fix yourself, the answers are within you, but you are too ignorant to realize this.

Go blow yourself. You've been completely routed in this discussion and can't even see it.