| Author | Message | ||
     Ft_bstrd |
Does the concept of morality operate in direct contravention of evolution? | ||
| Doerman |
Some thoughts on Morality and Religion: You can psychologize evolutionary religion but not the personal-experience religion of spiritual origin. Human morality may recognize values, but only religion can conserve, exalt, and spiritualize such values. But notwithstanding such actions, religion is something more than emotionalized morality. Religion is to morality as love is to duty, as sonship is to servitude, as essence is to substance. Morality discloses an almighty Controller, a Deity to be served; religion discloses an all-loving Father, a God to be worshiped and loved. | ||
| Britchri10 |
IMHO: An individual can be moral & follow any moral code without the following any religion. Evolution, evolutionary changes & morality are not mutually exclusive regardless of any belief/non-belief in a deity, a religious creed or religion itself. It's more a question of decency & respect for one's fellow man (or woman if we are being totally PC) Also: (FWIW) I believe that spirituality is not reliant upon religious belief. One can be spiritual without being religious. Chris C | ||
| Slaughter |
Or not | ||
| Crusty |
Does the concept of morality operate in direct contravention of evolution? No. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
IMHO: An individual can be moral & follow any moral code without the following any religion. Agreed. I believe that spirituality is not reliant upon religious belief. One can be spiritual without being religious. Agreed. The question isn't one of religion. Atheists can be very moral people. Those who claim to be religious can be very immoral people. The question was one of morality without the context of religion, morality in a vacuum. Does morality operate in contravention to evolution? Put another way, if it is moral to care for those who are weaker, would evolution not dictate that the weaker should be supplanted by the stronger? | ||
| Crusty |
Stephen Hawking might be considered weaker, if you consider physical strength alone. Sometimes weaker in one aspect is stronger in another. By being Moral, the whole is enhanced more than evolution alone would make it. | ||
| 99savage |
Never had the opportunity to study philosophy Serious inquiry - Is this question "metaphysical"? Explain why or why not thx, | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Great example Crusty. By the guidelines, keeping Stephen Hawking alive is in contravention of both Natural Selection and Evolution. Genetically, he is a dead end. | ||
| Buellkowski |
But to his family (and societally) Hawking is a treasure, so he is supported and accommodated to allow his value to continue to be realized. Humans ceased killing each other over carrion and began caring for their oldsters and ceremonially burying their dead when the species became relatively settled, secure, and smart enough to afford to do so. In harsher, more dangerous times they couldn't do it without risking the community or its resources. I think human "morality" is a consequence of our evolution. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
"Treasure" is a subjective term. Evolutionary processes are not subjective. If you are the largest, fastest, smartest, most able to adapt, you survive. If you aren't, you don't. If Hawking's family was forced to flee or perish and transporting Hawking would prevent them from fleeing, caring for Hawking as a "treasure" would end them from an evolutionary standpoint. Their moral act would guarantee evolutionary extinction. Their amoral act of leaving him to fend for himself and perishing would promote their evolutionary opportunities. Therefore it would seem that morality and continued evolutionary participation (survival) are mutually exclusive. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Remember the dwarf in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome? He had a lot of knowledge that was useful to the survival of his rescuers, and they risked much (and suffered losses) in order to wrest him away from his captors. Short term loss for long term gain. Was it "moral" to sacrifice strong, healthy compatriots to save a weak dwarf? My point is that morality carries a cost, and as much as you might eschew relativism, humans' ability to afford to engage in contemporarily "moral" behavior has increased along with evolutionary progress, greater common resources, and improved strategic decision-making. Once upon a time, it was "moral" to leave grandpa to the wolves so that the rest could divide his share of mastodon. When humans got smart and had enough to share with grandpa, it then became "moral" to feed and protect him. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Buellkowski, What you are describing isn't an evolutionary process. | ||
| Buellkowski |
Does morality operate in contravention to evolution? Morality arises from our evolutionary advancement. The former is the result of the latter. We hold morals because we have evolved and learned. Holding morals is not an indication of arrested evolution, but rather it is a by-product of evolutionary success. This is what I've been attempting to convey. Are you insinuating that morals are somehow weakening human evolution? | ||
| Team_ruthless |
I am going to go fart into a shoe box | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Morality arises from our evolutionary advancement. False. Evolution, by its very nature, is amoral. Those best suited, survive. Those least suited, perish. Are you insinuating that morals are somehow weakening human evolution? No. I'm simply asking how others reconcile moral constructs and amoral evolution believing in both. | ||
| Buellkowski |
I never said that evolutionary processes were moral. What I said was that our species enjoys the luxury of holding morals thanks to our evolutionary success. And having evolved into the world's best strategic decision-makers, we can assign "moral" significance (relativistically speaking) to actions we take for the perceived benefit of our society/species/habitat. "Morals" such as Aztec human sacrifice practices have an evolutionary tendency to die out, whereas "morals" such as "let's protect and feed the smart, crippled guy" can have some measure of evolutionary success. (Message edited by Buellkowski on April 28, 2012) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
to actions we take for the perceived benefit of our society/species/habitat. Are there actions taken "for the greater good" that go to far under your moral construct? Put another way, can the intentions to work for the greater good end up creating the very end of modern man rather than protecting it? | ||
| Buellkowski |
Absolutely. As Kenneth Bainbridge said when he witnessed the Trinity shot, "Now we're all sons of bitches." | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If that is the case, then, there is a balancing point sought between pure evolution and pure morality? Pure evolution - allowing man to develop devoid of moral limitations or reservations Pure morality - pursuit of morality regardless of the evolutionary consequences to man's development | ||
| Slaughter |
Pure evolution MUST by definition INCLUDE morality if it is advantageous to be moral. There is no conflict. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What other species requires this morality component? | ||
| Fast1075 |
"genetic dead end" I believe Mr. Hawking has fathered three children. Strictly speaking he remains in the gene pool. | ||
| Aesquire |
I suppose it makes a difference if you think that actions by our species to preserve the infirm cancel evolution, OR is just part of the selection process for future generations. Natural Selection vs. altered Selection? Does it make a difference if it's a cultural thing, ( keeping granny around for wisdom vs. leaving outside the igloo ) or directed by a group? ( eugenics, infanticide, euthanasia, socialized medicine, etc. ) | ||
| Kenm123t |
We have not evolved we just have better toys. Any species that kills its unborn and spends millions to convince every one its Moral and nearly a sacrement has not evolved. | ||
| Blake |
Isn't Hawking a poor example? He paid his own way through scholarships and grants didn't he. He needs no one else to donate their labors on his behalf. He pays folks to help him prosper. A better example would be someone who is unable to survive absent donated caregiving. In that case, it would seem that the evolutionist points above fall far short in answering the topical question. It's interesting to note that on evolution, the ability to develop technology is a statistical freak of nature. Of the millions of species of organisms that thrive on the planet, only one has ever developed technology. the rest have no need of it. They survive just fine . Anyone can be moral. But how strong the basis might be for morality and the validity of universal moral values is another question entirely. On naturalism, there just is no basis for universal moral values; on naturalism, humans have no more worth than a grain of sand. On naturalism, Hitler and all the proponents of eugenics had it right. | ||
| Boltrider |
Evolution doesn't always have to be amoral. If a mugger tries robbing you and in the process you maim or kill him via your concealed weapon, is that amoral? | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No but in the grand scheme of things, evolution doesn't care that a mugger is dead nor would it care if the mugger killed you. | ||
| Moxnix |
Please define metaphysics, I'm lost. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Pointless bullsh*t, I think Max. |
