Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Is Evolution a Sound Foundation for Morality?

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 1:53:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
A possible explanation. Moral ontology is worked out through abductive reasoning...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2012 2:36:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's assume God created human nature, either using evolution or not using evolution. If so then there are two possibilities: either human nature is compatible with morality or it is incompatible. If it is incomatible, then God played a cruel joke, which is by any interpretation immoral. therefore, human nature, however determined, must be compatible with morality.

Human nature does not change, t least not over a few thousand years. Therefore morality does not change.

It's semantics to worry if it's "fundamental." That doesn't cause or stop moral behavior.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 12:04:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 1:53:12 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
A possible explanation. Moral ontology is worked out through abductive reasoning...

The Fool: How do you feel about Abductive reasoning.????

Do you trust it?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 1:03:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/4/2012 1:45:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
Evolution is an explanation for morality, not a foundation for it.

wtf are any of you even talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with morality.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 2:02:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 1:03:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2012 1:45:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
Evolution is an explanation for morality, not a foundation for it.

wtf are any of you even talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

The Fool: You are supposed to try and figure out why it may make sense before criticizing. At least that is a code of the philosopher. The idea is that to work as a team was benificial our survival and so that is why we evolved to thing of morality.

e.g. Wolfs travel as packs and work as a team to survive.

The Fool: I am not a fan but that is the argument. ..
and the original poster here is just in philosophy section to put fear into the people that are athiest. The idea is that if we don't have and ability to form objective morals then we have to belief in God or else.

But it fails because believe is subjective, so religious moral could never be objective. Remember even if the garbage proofs are true. they have nothing to do with the bible. All they are doing is saying if there is cause of the universe that is God. THus God is a cause. IF that made sense which it doesnt' it just means that the word God refers to the word cause of the universe. These says nothing about any details of anything.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 6:09:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 1:03:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2012 1:45:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
Evolution is an explanation for morality, not a foundation for it.

wtf are any of you even talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

What I mean is that evolution provides an explanation for why the behaviors we label as being "moral" or "immoral" exist.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 1:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 1:03:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2012 1:45:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
Evolution is an explanation for morality, not a foundation for it.

wtf are any of you even talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

Let's see: Humboldt squid are naturally cannibalistic, sand gobies (fish) eat their offspring, polar bears kill their offspring, praying mantis each their mates. Evolution dictates their behavior patterns. Humans are inherently tribal, are inherently curious (demanding reasons), have a self preservation instinct, and have a family instinct. Morality reflects evolutionary instincts.
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 2:31:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It could be a foundation of morality, that is, if you want to correlate natural law and morality.

Otherwise, it's not. I guess you could say morals are just rhetorical devices and exist only within the intellectual marketplace of human beings, but for others, it seems very real and tangible to them. I honestly believe that morality is just an abstract concept of measurement.
turn down for h'what
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 2:53:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 2:02:27 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
and the original poster here is just in philosophy section to put fear into the people that are athiest. The idea is that if we don't have and ability to form objective morals then we have to belief in God or else.

But it fails because believe is subjective, so religious moral could never be objective. Remember even if the garbage proofs are true. they have nothing to do with the bible. All they are doing is saying if there is cause of the universe that is God. THus God is a cause. IF that made sense which it doesnt' it just means that the word God refers to the word cause of the universe. These says nothing about any details of anything.

eeping the distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology clear is the most important task in formulating and defending a moral argument for God's existence. A proponent of that argument will agree quite readily (and even insist) that we do not need to know or even believe that God exists in order to discern objective moral values or to recognize our moral duties. Affirming the ontological foundations of objective moral values and duties in God similarly says nothing about how we come to know those values and duties. The theist can be genuinely open to whatever epistemological theories his secular counterpart proposes for how we come to know objective values and duties.

You might say "how do we know that objective moral values and duties exist?" But it's no part of my argument to claim certainty about these matters. There are very few matters in life about which we can be certain. All that matters is that, after thoughtfully reflecting on the question of moral values and weighing the alternatives, we come to the conclusion that, yes, objective moral values probably do exist. And the answer to that question is: "Because I clearly apprehend objective moral values and have no good reason to deny what I clearly perceive." (Our moral intuitions clearly tell us, for example, that it is clearly wrong to rape and kill a young girl.)

This is the same answer we would give to the skeptic who says, "How do you know you're not just a body lying in the Matrix and that all that you see and experience is an illusory, virtual reality?" We have no way to get outside our five senses and prove that they're veridical. Rather I clearly apprehend a world of people and trees and cars and houses about me, and I have no good reason to doubt what I clearly perceive. Sure, it's possible that I'm a body in the Matrix. But possibilities come cheap. The mere possibility provides no warrant for denying what I clearly grasp.

There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values any more than there is to deny the objective reality of the physical world. If we trust our sensory intuitions that there is a physical world external to us, then there's no reason why we shouldn't trust our moral intuitions of the realm of objective values.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 3:07:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In case you're wondering, that's a direct copy and paste from W.L.Craig.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 3:16:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 1:03:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2012 1:45:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
Evolution is an explanation for morality, not a foundation for it.

wtf are any of you even talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

You are joking, right?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 3:36:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 3:07:15 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
In case you're wondering, that's a direct copy and paste from W.L.Craig.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I outrightly avoid mentioning when I post material from William Lane Craig so as to avoid pathetic ad hominems and unsolicited emotional diatribes. It is of the least matter who is doing the talking (or typing).
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 3:40:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 3:16:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/7/2012 1:03:51 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/4/2012 1:45:20 PM, drafterman wrote:
Evolution is an explanation for morality, not a foundation for it.

wtf are any of you even talking about? Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

You are joking, right?

Evolution can explain, perhaps, why natural selection has deemed it beneficial for us to act morally, but evolution would not be able to provide a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties which we both want to affirm. Evolution may be able to tell us, for example, that raping and murdering is not conducive to one's own survivability, but it in no way would be able to tell us that it is objectively wrong or "evil" to do so. There would be no reason to think that what is conducive to one's survivability or that of his species is objectively good in an atheistic worldview (or to think that what is not conducive to a species is "wrong" or "bad"). As Hume pointed out (turns out Hume actually got some things right), we cannot get an ought from an is. For example: The "is" in the case of rape would be "it is not beneficial to the survivability of an individual of a species to rape other members of the same species." The "ought" would be "Therefore, we ought not rape members of our species." We cannot derive objective values or duties from scientific facts. At best we could say that we "don't like" rape, but there is no reason to think, given naturalism, that rape is objectively wrong in any sense. By trying to derive an ought from an is, one is merely committing the naturalistic fallacy.