I agree. But I think you will agree that to hold that perspective as true today is ridiculous. Science has moved on and people should too.
Ok, so thats why the ancients thought Noah's tale could be realistic.
How do you know what is evil when evil is none existent?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
I agree. But I think you will agree that to hold that perspective as true today is ridiculous. Science has moved on and people should too.
I googled "genetic causes altruism". If at first you don't succeed, reword what you tell the search engine, they are finicky.
The little yellow dialogue balloon in your advanced reply toolbar (to the left of the pound sign) will quote whatever you highlight here. Then just C & P.
Hmm, I wish someone would tell me how to strikethrough, it's not in the fonts menu.
From Wikipedia: Definition of population bottleneck:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
Yet another reason why Noah's ark really just has to be a folktale...besides the neat correlation with an earlier Babylonian myth:
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/floodorigins.html
How did we get here from good and evil though???
My apologies to the OP for going WAAAAY off-topic.
Are you saying that if you suddenly found proof that your god does not exist, that you would become an evil murderous rapist? Do you really need an external source to tell you the difference between good and evil?
Stretched out so as not to be effective
[ s ] Three strikes, you're out! [ /s ]
My own hypothesis is that religion really does very little to alter interpersonal behavior, which explains why the evangelicals I meet are all so very judgmental.
Last edited:
I think you've pointed out where I fundamentally disagree here. The word law more closely fits something longstanding, where the word morality generally fits things for the time or of a person preference. If what you were saying were fundamentally true, it would be Newtons Three Morals. Morals are closer to a person preferences or customs, which change with the winds of time, whereas laws would require a change in physics, not ever gonna happen.
Yes...although the more complex the animal, the more socialization plays a part.
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Altruism and Aggression 1986.pdf
Of course I dont. But do you really need me to point out that your analogy fails, because you haven't linked to a bunch of pages, which might or might not contain the above threat, without specifying where on those pages whatever it is you're trying to say, can be found.
If people post links, they should at least quote a relevant sentence from the linked page.
Bells
Staff member
The links were posted. It is only a matter of you clicking on them to see for yourself. No one should have to cater for your laziness and no one deserves to be abused and insulted and sworn at because you are too lazy to click on a link.
I would have assumed that was clear from my post to you. It seems not. The numerous links posted to you, upon your demand can be found starting from here:
Post 31
Post 33
Post 40
And each time you kept demanding that aaqucnaona provided support for his/her claims. Then you started to get abusive and rude about it, because you were still too damned lazy to click on a link. Whereupon the thread degenerated from you trolling because you refused to click on a single link provided.
Such behaviour is not acceptable on this forum. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you want me to make it even simpler for you? That is of course, if you can actually be bothered to click on the links provided showing where the evidence was presented to you. It starts from page two of this thread if you're too lazy to even click on these links.
There is a big difference between saying that certain (human) behaviours may be amenable to an evolutionary explanation, and claiming that those behaviours are determined by genetics. Clearly behaviours, at least for humans, are not so determined. If nothing else, that uniquely human attribute, culture, serves to de-couple behaviour from genetics.
Still, looking for, and understanding, the adaptive reasons for at least the rise of a given behaviour can be a fruitful line of inquiry.
Rich
Still, looking for, and understanding, the adaptive reasons for at least the rise of a given behaviour can be a fruitful line of inquiry.
Rich
elte
Valued Senior Member
One way to get access to specific ScienceDaily topics is to search right on its Web-site. There are over a hundred thousand stories there.
OK thanks.
Rich, but the only way any evolutionary explaination can de give is through genetics. Thats the only thing constant throught human history, much less the history of life.
Morality seems to be a repackaged term being used by some social scientists as determined by basic laws. This widens the scope of the terms meaning from cultural preferences to survivalism. This convolutes the terms meaning overall. Moralities stipulation can change quite drastically from religion to religion, i.e., multiple wives in this one, one wife in that one. We can debate polygamy vs. monogamy as to which is better for survival, but they both have benefits and boils down to preference. Where scientes will admit this, not the moralists, they will apply tags of morality that also fall into the criminal category. We have psuedo-science, shall we introduce pseudo-morality for the scientific moralists?
I would agree with what the wiki claims as the traditional view:
Your claim is:
The wiki claims that animals do not possess moral behavior, but instead modify their behavior:
I assume the difference between human morality and animal behavior modification is that a human has more complex cognitive activity before the moral decision is made. I think a few degrees of change is the fundamental difference here.
Natural law will determine what will be cooperative and not. Since physical laws do not change, physical laws will determine the genes that allow for behavior modification that increases survival and remove genes that do not allow for modifications.
In humans, although more cognitive activity before a choice in behavior, humans can only act as intelligently and cooperatively relative to the facts understood in the situation. These facts are determined again my physical laws. A person lacking necessary facts will have the same intentions as one with more facts that would allow a more productive decisions.
Morality seems to imply a person has good intentions, but nature will punish those who are not respectful of it's laws, regardless of intention. As a result, morality doesn't seem to have the last word or should be used as a guide, instead a strong understanding of natures laws has the last word. The ebb and flow of what is right and wrong changes from culture to culture and time to time, but nature's laws never change.
The context in which you are using morality is that we can all agree on it. I could agree, but I think the term 'morality' is improper, so I don't agree. I think it's law we can agree on not morality.
Because of these types of moral ambiguities, I hold to the traditional scientific view. I don't agree to call what is now the 'new science of morality', instead I would call it the science of cooperation. I leave the term morality to the religious and the preferential.
I agree with the rest of your post but think about it, religion isn't the only other option. Neurology, sociology, philosophy, psychology are all fields equally capable of handling this question. We dont have to refer to evolutionary biology or neurobiology when we talk of a scientific basis for morality.
My only point was that religion isn't the only way to determine morality, and at some level, it is genetically influenced, like:
One can sacrifice 1 life to save 5;
innocent bystanders should not be dragged into or harmed by conflicts;
we have moral obligations to our relatives, etc.
I'm glad scientists have been stepping up to morality and putting into a scientific context. I see it can help those those who impose their preferences on others understand it's an impractical way to run a society, and help those who are against all morality better see a natural basis for human choices.
I guess my question at this point is: What criteria does science use to draw that line on what is moral and immoral using a genetic basis? Just because some choices may have more Darwin points than other choices like heterosexual choices, does that mean that homosexual choices are wrong?
Does science use a scale point system where this has x amount of morality points, or is there a clear line determining moral and immoral?
If scientific morality encompasses all things in general (cultural preferences like public nudity to intolerance of homicide), then it's ambiguous. But it if demands a significant amount of harm for a human action to be considered moral, then we already have a taxification for that: crime. If it’s a scale based on survival points, wheres the scale?
@Steampunk
I think both darwin points and survival value are inadequate scales for a scientific study of morality. I think the ability to be happy [or to have an emotionally rich experience] is what should be the scale. But it will not be an absolute scale. This video from TED is a good starting point for a 'Science of morality':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
I think both darwin points and survival value are inadequate scales for a scientific study of morality. I think the ability to be happy [or to have an emotionally rich experience] is what should be the scale. But it will not be an absolute scale. This video from TED is a good starting point for a 'Science of morality':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Big Chiller
Registered Senior Member
I don't think it's a mystery that morality is subjective.