Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

My take on morality and Darwin's Theory

failedALIAS
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 6:38:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well to begin, I'm sure that any atheist (agnostic, Humanist) has encountered the Moral Argument before; The idea that science has no reasonable evidence of the origins of morality, other than a Creator.
Well, here is my theory.

Human Beings: Social animals developed through evolution to survive the best way they can, through each other. They had to have group-understanding to make it in their harsh existence, so leaders and gatherers and hunters became part of the species system. But none of this could have worked if they didn't know how to act appropriately with one another, they could though. They were taught throughout life how to care for young and prowl the land for resources. The social traits of humans and many other creatures can date back to bacteria itself; they maintained the primitive capabilities of: reporting on locations of food, to dangers of various sorts, they developed into the sophisticated communication we know today.

So morality is the "Base" for what's good and bad, but the remainder is what each person is taught as "right and wrong". Most people are taught basically the same things: don't steal, don't hurt, say please, hold the door open for people, and never kill. Because of this someone can do "wrong" while strongly believing they are doing right. Hitler believed it was his mission from god to do what he must for the prosperity of his people. Stalin thought he was entitled to the power he possessed and strived to possess.
Morality is the urge to do what is best for others. Right and Wrong is what defines that.
I hope I have made a persuadable point. Please share your opinions and correct me where I'm wrong. (With acceptable evidence, of course.)
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No Hell below us
Above us only Sky
Imagine All the people living for Today - John Lennon
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 6:42:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I hate to sound harsh, but you didn't really address the issue at all.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 6:45:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The problem with a Darwinian-based morality is that it in no way takes into account the meaning of objective moral values, but simply actions that benefit humans. Sure, we might be programmed by evolution to condone actions that bring prosperity, and condemn actions that harm us, but how does that have anything to do with objective moral values? Mere benefit isn't equivalent to morality.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 6:49:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My take on Darwin's theory is that it's funny...

Fish with wrists, pigs with fins ...

Yeah, survival of the fittest alright!

But, I'm just not so sure about the whole moral argument. Morality is different for different cultures. For some people, killing is a sin, for others, it's OK. For some, adultry is normal, for others, it's normal.

I don't think this is an argument that we can win because I am not sure of a moral rule that applies to everyone and every culture.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 6:51:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 6:49:56 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
My take on Darwin's theory is that it's funny...

Fish with wrists, pigs with fins ...

Yeah, survival of the fittest alright!

But, I'm just not so sure about the whole moral argument. Morality is different for different cultures. For some people, killing is a sin, for others, it's OK. For some, adultry is normal, for others, it's normal.

I don't think this is an argument that we can win because I am not sure of a moral rule that applies to everyone and every culture.

Do you believe in God?
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 6:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 6:55:15 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Do you believe in God?

I love God with all of my heart, yes.

But you believe in relative morality? Very interesting.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 7:07:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But you believe in relative morality? Very interesting.

I believe in relative human morality for the same reason I believe in human stupidity. We always think we have God's will right only to be punched in the face by reality. The will of God is impossible to understand. As individuals, the struggle is to get what truth we can get out of the world.

I believe that all humans have a slice of truth inside of them. It's up to us to communicate with one another to get as many pieces right as we can. Given that 95% of what each of us know is wrong, getting the right pieces together is a big challenge. This is why we should hold each other accountable to only personal truths we testify to (i.e. if you state something as your personal belief as it relates to God, then I should hold you accountable to what YOU believe, not what I believe).
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 7:12:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 6:58:50 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 5/7/2012 6:55:15 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Do you believe in God?

I love God with all of my heart, yes.

But you believe in relative morality? Very interesting.

Belief in God doesn't necessarily constitute a belief in a Holy Text from which morality is usually derived from.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 7:16:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 7:12:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/7/2012 6:58:50 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 5/7/2012 6:55:15 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Do you believe in God?

I love God with all of my heart, yes.

But you believe in relative morality? Very interesting.

Belief in God doesn't necessarily constitute a belief in a Holy Text from which morality is usually derived from.

Okay...? Not the point I was making. I wasn't even making a point.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 7:28:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Belief in God doesn't necessarily constitute a belief in a Holy Text from which morality is usually derived from.

Despite the fact that I acknowledge the huge importance on the relative consstancy of biblical passages, this perfectly represents how I feel. I think the Bible is relied on far too heavily to the point where it takes away the personal relationship with God, and that has opened the door for atheists to attack where they otherwise would have no argument.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 7:32:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 7:28:00 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Belief in God doesn't necessarily constitute a belief in a Holy Text from which morality is usually derived from.

Despite the fact that I acknowledge the huge importance on the relative consstancy of biblical passages, this perfectly represents how I feel. I think the Bible is relied on far too heavily to the point where it takes away the personal relationship with God, and that has opened the door for atheists to attack where they otherwise would have no argument.

Atheists who only use the Bible to refute a personal god are rather ill-equipped atheists.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 7:40:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Atheists who only use the Bible to refute a personal god are rather ill-equipped atheists.

They really don't have much else to say without contradicting themselves.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 9:01:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 6:49:56 PM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
My take on Darwin's theory is that it's funny...

Fish with wrists, pigs with fins ...

Yeah, survival of the fittest alright!

But, I'm just not so sure about the whole moral argument. Morality is different for different cultures. For some people, killing is a sin, for others, it's OK. For some, adultry is normal, for others, it's normal.

I don't think this is an argument that we can win because I am not sure of a moral rule that applies to everyone and every culture.

I don't want to go off topic but sometimes these irrational attacks on evolution are irritating.

Fish with wrists silly huh? Google tiktaalik.
Pigs with fins? Evolution never makes that claim.

I don't think we are talking about the theory of evolution.

You are discussing the strawman theory of evolution, I am talking about the real theory of evolution.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2012 10:18:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If evolution is the foundation for morality and what is for the betterment to the survivability of our species is what is "good," then wouldn't actions such as eugenics, forcible genetic mutation, human culling to eliminate undesirable genetic traits, and genocide to alleviate overpopulation all be warranted and considered "good"? Would we not have an obligation to do so? Also, why think that the morality that evolution has determined conducive for is objective in any way? There's good reason to think otherwise; if we were to rewind the film of evolution and play it again, a creature with very different moral values and duties could have emerged instead of humans. For example, had natural selection determined it advantageous for humans to develop along the societal structure similar to that of hive-insect analogues, we could imagine that killing our brothers or offspring (or whatever) would be morally admirable. Thus our "morality" is merely arbitrary. And why think that humans have any moral worth? Why think that what is conducive to us is any more valuable than what is conducive to cheetahs or ants?
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 1:25:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't want to go off topic but sometimes these irrational attacks on evolution are irritating.

Fish with wrists silly huh? Google tiktaalik.
Pigs with fins? Evolution never makes that claim.

I don't think we are talking about the theory of evolution.

You are discussing the strawman theory of evolution, I am talking about the real theory of evolution.

I wasn't discussing the theory of evolution at all. I was discussing aspects of the theory of evolution I find funny. Why are you so defensive?

I never denied fish with wrists or pigs with fins.

I'm simply saying that survival of the fittest looks stupid, and the "fittest" part is borderline unfalsifiable because scientists will always suggest ways where this was more fit.

A piglike creature with webbed feet that can neither walk or swim fast doesn't sound like an evolutionary improvement for me.

Also, fish with elbows and wrists probably wouldn't increase swimming speed or survival potential.

Those two things, and there are many other examples, show survival of the fittest to be a silly idea and that it doesn't explain all adaptations unless you want to make the theory unfalsifiable.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 1:26:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Oh, and by piglike, I probably used the wrong word, it's more like a land based animal the size of a pig.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 1:39:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 6:45:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The problem with a Darwinian-based morality is that it in no way takes into account the meaning of objective moral values, but simply actions that benefit humans. Sure, we might be programmed by evolution to condone actions that bring prosperity, and condemn actions that harm us, but how does that have anything to do with objective moral values? Mere benefit isn't equivalent to morality.

...What? Action X either objectively benefits humanity or objectively is bad for humanity (supposing liberty is beneficial to humanity). Benefit is equal to morality, if that's how you define morality. Which is the problem of the moral argument: it defines a relative word, then objectifies language (the only word in the entire English language that can be objective now according to the moral argument). "Mere benefit" is made to be "equivalent to morality".
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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2012 1:46:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/7/2012 10:18:31 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
If evolution is the foundation for morality and what is for the betterment to the survivability of our species is what is "good," then wouldn't actions such as eugenics,

Eugenics is a social necessity, made prominent in Romanticism in the West and "forced" or coerced or staged marriages in the East (and upper class West). Social Eugenics cause societal destruction due to creation of a caste system. Finally, social eugenics presupposes Lamarckism, not Darwinism, when done to any real degree.

forcible genetic mutation,

See above.

human culling to eliminate undesirable genetic traits,

See above.

genocide to alleviate overpopulation

See above.

Would we not have an obligation to do so?

We have an obligation to create a happy society and promote the interests of others.

Also, why think that the morality that evolution has determined conducive for is objective in any way? There's good reason to think otherwise; if we were to rewind the film of evolution and play it again, a creature with very different moral values and duties could have emerged instead of humans.

Which would presuppose that there was a change, where we have different needs and desires. I mean, if by eating ourselves we clean our teeths (just taking a comical one) and the flesh grows back, and we don't feel anything from it, then this wouldn't be immoral. Objective laws =/= Absolute laws.

For example, had natural selection determined it advantageous for humans to develop along the societal structure similar to that of hive-insect analogues, we could imagine that killing our brothers or offspring (or whatever) would be morally admirable. Thus our "morality" is merely arbitrary.

Objective laws =/= Absolute laws =/= Arbitrary laws. The end remains constant, therefore the morality remains valid. Also, natural selection does not determine societies.

And why think that humans have any moral worth? Why think that what is conducive to us is any more valuable than what is conducive to cheetahs or ants?

Due to self-consciousness, ability to behave rationally, and ability to act morally.
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...
Dan4reason
Posts: 1,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2012 12:55:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/8/2012 1:25:51 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:

I'm simply saying that survival of the fittest looks stupid, and the "fittest" part is borderline unfalsifiable because scientists will always suggest ways where this was more fit.

It is not unfalsifiable. If every body structure gave every creature an equal survival advantage it would be unfalsifiable. However we know that different body structures have varying degrees of survivability. Therefore some creatures will be more likely to survive and reproduce with the more survivable body structures which means that later generations will be more and more likely to be descended from these naturally selected creatures.

This is all natural selection is. it is just common science. It has also been observed in the wild.

A piglike creature with webbed feet that can neither walk or swim fast doesn't sound like an evolutionary improvement for me.

I haven't heard of such a thing. What are you referring to?

Also, fish with elbows and wrists probably wouldn't increase swimming speed or survival potential.

If these fish lived in shallow water it would help them move by grappling on the ground a pushing themselves around. We see this in amphibians.

Those two things, and there are many other examples, show survival of the fittest to be a silly idea and that it doesn't explain all adaptations unless you want to make the theory unfalsifiable.

When you are attacking natural selection, you are no longer focusing on macro-evolution, you are focusing on micro-evolution. Even creationists don't have a problem with natural selection and micro-evolution. So why do you?