Uncle Martin Posted June 14, 2004 Report Posted June 14, 2004 Tormod, Yes, statements one and two are correct. But I think that morals are learned, which in my opinion does not disqualify them as an evolutionary advantage. Does something have to be genetic to qualify for that distinction? I can't see that. As far as "impel other animals to live in a body", I presume Darwin to imply a society. Replace the word body with society and it makes sense.
Tormod Posted June 14, 2004 Report Posted June 14, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle MartinTormod,Yes, statements one and two are correct. But I think that morals are learned, which in my opinion does not disqualify them as an evolutionary advantage. Does something have to be genetic to qualify for that distinction? I can't see that. You wrote (above) that: " this moral code evolved with our social behavior which is an evolutionary advantage". I jumped to the conclusion that you implied that morality was somehow imprinted in our genes. My bad. I think we agree perfectly. As far as "impel other animals to live in a body", I presume Darwin to imply a society. Replace the wor(d) body with society and it makes sense. A good observation. Yes, that makes sense. If a society has a set of rules, or "moral codes", a being would need to conform to these rules in order to stay with the society. Since most animals and human beings are social creatures, the need to understand and act according to these rules would be an evolutionary advantage. Tormod
Tim_Lou Posted June 14, 2004 Author Report Posted June 14, 2004 although religions seem to be having a negative affect on society, isnt it still an evolutionary advacement? but it just seems to have no good on today's society and thus being "naturally not selected"? without religions, science might not exist. science is actually a evolution of religions, religion is based on belief, science go further and include explaination. and religion is the one of the basic build ups of morality, it starts up what we call "good" and "bad". in todays society, b/c all these values are being taught, so the other part of religions is un-needed. so, religion is something bad in today's society thus needs to be evolved into science.but it worked fine in the past.
geko Posted June 14, 2004 Report Posted June 14, 2004 Everyone help, im confused Let me argue for how i think and then tell me what you think. Originally posted by: Tormod A) To judge someone else's morality is a double edged sword. One one side we judge people by defining them as belonging to this or that group/religios faction/political faction/other movement and so on, B) and then assume that because they have by default the same level of morality as the group. Not sure what you mean here (especially with B ) but with A are you saying that people do belong to a certain movement (or system) and their 'sense of' morailty is defined by it, and to judge any, as 'correct' or 'incorrect', is relatively pointless because they'll be no agreement? Does B say "...and because of this, people assume that each individual in the group, has by default, the same sense of morality as the rest of the group"? In which case i think that it supports my paragraph above[?] What i think we have to remember (which was said else where in this thread i think) is that there will be slight differences with each individual. I think you support this later on in the post (and then use yourself as an example for this idea with the last line), when you say Originally posted by: Tormod If you ask every person in the world, "what is morality", you'd get 6 billion answers (although many of them would sound similar). Most morality is based on peoples life experience, their upbringing, their attitude, their friends and relations. Some people actually think it is morally right to steal things in a store simply because the store sells so much that they won't miss a single item. Others don't pay for public transport because they think it should be free. I would argue that from MY standpoint, they are both immoral. I would agree. There is also a kind of agreement i think when it is said that Originally posted by: Uncle Martin In my opinion religion is false and has an overall negative effect on society- to simplify I'll call it "bad". Morality is true and has a positive effect- to simplify I'll call it "good"..... Bad-Good= oxymoron. The religious convolute morality to fit their agenda, not the good of society or in search of truth. This is all stated in a macro scale. No two individual moralities are identicle, not all religions are without some redeeming qualities. But i think there's confusion here when it is said (simply) 'religion is bad', and then followed with 'morality is good'. (i am going somewhere with this) My confusion comes when i see religions having their own morality, which is the reason they are being viewed as 'bad' in the first place. So, [morality] cant be 'good' because it is shown as being 'bad' when viewed in a religious context. Thus [?], judgeing morality from a different perspective than the one 'it comes from' is erroneous as far as that system is concerned. They are both right. No one should be concerned with arguing this way or that because no middle ground can be found between clashing codes. The opposite is asking people to change their system, no longer follow that system, and follow another one? Basically, are we saying that all codes of conduct come from systems? Or are we saying that each one is unique and comes from an individual? More confusion comes to me... Originally posted by: Tormod 1) Morality is not made. It is the sum of a person's behaviour. It is linked with our actions. Nobody creates "morality". However, society judges upon acts of (im)morality and decides t
geko Posted June 14, 2004 Report Posted June 14, 2004 I have questions on the evolutionary perspective as well but right now is time to sleep. Tomorrow ill ask if they dont get cleared up.
geko Posted June 14, 2004 Report Posted June 14, 2004 Sorry, finished that post to quick (good job i read it through after i posted.... ah sleep). Anyway, i should have finished off by saying that Individuality -> No morality. People invent principles (which, and the reasons for, are highly personalised.... as i think you would agree?).
Tormod Posted June 14, 2004 Report Posted June 14, 2004 geko, ...I have to crash too, almost midnight here, will try and catch up on this tomorrow. Tormod
Freethinker Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by: Tim_Loualthough religions seem to be having a negative affect on society, isnt it still an evolutionary advacement?Very good. Well said. During it's "Time", religion had a purpose and that was an advancement over no organized thought. Religions obviously rose up as a way to understand and predict natural rythms. Trying to correlate things that happened cyclically with other thing's cycles. With their surroundings being based on a food chain, they would naturally make the false assumption that the power they witness in nature would need some form of anthropomorphic control. That mentality is now as much of a stumbling block as unorganized thought was before natural pattern recognition. but it just seems to have no good on today's society and thus being "naturally not selected"?Breaking an addiction to anything can be a long painful process. But those that break free of religious adhernace provide advancements that increase the likelyhood of procreation for them. Trouble is they also see the consequences of uncontrolled birth rate. So natural selection of the meme (if such things exist) is in a balance. without religions, science might not exist. It was those trying to resolve religious issues that brought science to light. They assumed it would help prove the their myths. But the more the science side developed it's formal structure, the less religion found it supported it. So they tried to cast off science as a bad side trip. That didn't work, so now they are trying to buy it. Or control it with Political puppet strings.science is actually a evolution of religions, religion is based on belief, science go further and include explaination.Funny, I was just reading some of the quotes I have collected to put a new sig. I found these after the one I put on. "Science shares with religion the claim that it answers deep questions about origins, the nature of life, and the cosmos. But there the resemblance ends. Scientific beliefs are supported by evidence, and they get results. Myths and faiths are not and do not." Richard Dawkins - River out of Eden "Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn." [st. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis)] "To those seaching for truth - not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction - faith in fiction is a damnable false hope." [Thomas Edison] Om the other hand: "We ought always be ready to believe that what seems to us white is black if the hierarchical church so defines it" Ignatius Loyola (founder of the Jesuits) "Crucifixus est dei filius; non pudet, quia pudendum est. Et mortuus est dei filius; credibile prorsus est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile." The son of God was crucified; it's not silly, because it must be silly. And the son of God died; it's absolutely credible, because it's daft. And the buried rose again; it's certain, because it's impossible. (Tertullian, De carne Christi ch. 5, 4.) "People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves,
Uncle Martin Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by: geko Originally posted by: Uncle Martin In my opinion religion is false and has an overall negative effect on society- to simplify I'll call it "bad". Morality is true and has a positive effect- to simplify I'll call it "good"..... Bad-Good= oxymoron. The religious convolute morality to fit their agenda, not the good of society or in search of truth. This is all stated in a macro scale. No two individual moralities are identicle, not all religions are without some redeeming qualities. But i think there's confusion here when it is said (simply) 'religion is bad', and then followed with 'morality is good'. (i am going somewhere with this) My confusion comes when i see religions having their own morality, which is the reason they are being viewed as 'bad' in the first place. So, [morality] cant be 'good' because it is shown as being 'bad' when viewed in a religious context. This is really out of context. I was answering Tormod's question as to why religious morality is an oxymoron as simply as I could. Which should clear up your confusion, religion is not moral. Something can't be good and bad at the same time. Religion may call itself moral, but the evidence is contrary. I assert that morality is a human contrivance and is not in any way handed down by a supernatural being. It is required in order to sustain a social group(society) and evolved alongside our social instincts because it was needed to utilize the evolutionary advantages of a social order. I believe morality is mostly learned, some basic right and wrong notions may be genetic in nature. This is my view of morality on a societal level. Can someone please tell me why my post is so squished?
Tormod Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Unc, you need to mind your Qs when you add quotes. How do you quote? Your post had four "opening" quote tags [ q ] but only one closing quote tag [ /q ]. Tormod
Uncle Martin Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Thanks for fixing that Tormod. To answer your question, at 2:00? AM after SEVERAL? beers, I really don't remember what I did to get those results.
Tormod Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle Martinafter SEVERAL? beers, I really don't remember what I did to get those results. Does this imply that you had so many beers that you don't remember how many? Hm...maybe we should require an alohol test to post after 11pm. Tormod
Freethinker Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodOriginally posted by: Uncle Martin after SEVERAL? beers, I really don't remember what I did to get those results. Does this imply that you had so many beers that you don't remember how many? Hm...maybe we should require an alohol test to post after 11pm. TormodGreat! Now we are going to need a breathalizer hooked up to the PC before we can post here? What next? Biometrics to prove it is us? You FACIST! What do you work for the Bush admin? :-)
Uncle Martin Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Yeah, that should cut the membership by 75%. I may as well say goodbye now.
Freethinker Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by: gekoEveryone help, im confused Let me argue for how i think and then tell me what you think. I think you argue too much! :-)My confusion comes when i see religions having their own morality, which is the reason they are being viewed as 'bad' in the first place. So, [morality] cant be 'good' because it is shown as being 'bad' when viewed in a religious context. I can't speak for the intent of the original poster (I could, but it wouldn't count) but what I think we need to differentiate is "morality" being "being 'bad' when viewed in a religious context" and "religion based morality being bad". Do "religions hav(e) their own morality"? Yes, and other than the mythical dogma, that is basically what they are, a specific set of moral and ethical tenets to provide outside guidance to followers. Do morals and ethics that are religiously based tend to be "bad"? This can easily be proven historically. Thus [?], judgeing morality from a different perspective than the one 'it comes from' is erroneous as far as that system is concerned. They are both right.Two contradictory evaluations can NEVER "both be right". Further, morality CAN be judged from with-in it's source system. It can be judged based specifically on internal consistancy or lack there of. I am not saying that members of a specific system might undertake such consitancy checking, but that it could take place. Basically, are we saying that all codes of conduct come from systems? Or are we saying that each one is unique and comes from an individual?Leads me to think in a way i agree, and OK, maybe i was wrong when i said morality was invented by humans. But either way i feel the same because i feel as though it's just a different term for the same idea. I.e. Morality is the term used to highlight the existence of moral code [of conduct], which are invented by humans.I think we are trapped in a semantics game. In what way would we apply the concept of "morality" to other species? Yes we could apply some subject ive and perhaps even objective standards to how a species acts. But that wouldbe assigning HUMAN morality, not that species viewing it's OWN morality. I would argue that other species do not consciously make "moral" decisions. They do have societal conventions, but can they really be elevated to the level of "sentient moral tenets". Is there an equivalent to PETA in other species? Or any other "moralist" position? "Morals", "Morality", "Moral Tenets" are all the same thing as far as being held to the same standards and systems. What i think also runs through the above is that we're born with certain programming already in placeNaturethat learns our likes and dislikes (including of behaviour), and which influences us on a cummulative basis in every present moment.Nuture The product of which, is defined [as] morality.If the person then wishes to search for the validity of their morality (under whatever stance they have decided to approach 'valid' with, including pragmatism) then the only way this can be accomplished is through agreement/consensus. Which is then a system of thought all by itself (religions always being the easiest examples to give). After all that i think we're back to square one. A persons sense of another persons morality is so subjective that there's no hope of agreement? Which seems to imply again that the actual codes themselves are man-made?I agree that they are "(hu)man made". However I disagree that they are completely SUBJECTIVE. Tha
Freethinker Posted June 15, 2004 Report Posted June 15, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle MartinYeah, that should cut the membership by 75%. I may as well say goodbye now. Let's just hope it doesn't include a piss test! :-)
Recommended Posts