Morality and Darwinism

[MichaeltheGreat]

The whole "constructing reality" thing is overly pedantic.

Like it or not, we do "construct reality" rather than directly interact with objective reality.

In simple cases, our constructed reality corresponds closely with "objective" reality. The more complex, the more abstract, or the more emotionally loaded the issue, the less our constructed realities agree with each other and with objective reality.

Studies on everything from reliability of eyewitnesses to false memories to interpretation of events show that we selectively filter information and alter it's importance. That's reality, so deal with it.

[chequita guevara]

A side note on the book about rape. If rape is a "biological" urge, then why rape men, the elderly, and children? Why anal rape? Why use condoms during rape? Why use objects during rape? And what about the not insignificant number of rapists who fail to ejaculate during rape?

As an evolutionary adpation, it's severaly flawed. Furthermore, how did this adaptation come about? For what part of human evolution were large numbers of men only able to reproduce via rape? This wuold only be the case if significant numbers of women were reproductively unavailable, and from what we know of pre-historical societies, this wasn't true.

It only becomes true during the agricultural revolution, because at that point only was it possible or a single male to keep large number of reproductive females secluded (because fewer people working could now support more idle people). So we're looking at only a few thousand years of history, and even in this period, there's always been women who were available to more than one man. So where's the evolutionary adaptation?

If you start out basing your premise on junk science, your results will be junk.

[Sirotnikov]

A side note on the book about rape. If rape is a "biological" urge, then why rape men, the elderly, and children? Why anal rape? Why use condoms during rape? Why use objects during rape? And what about the not insignificant number of rapists who fail to ejaculate during rape?

It doesn't interefere. The actual success of fullfilling the urge is unrelated to the urge itself.

I'm sure you don't question sex and eating as obviously bioloical urges, even though many people only have sex for fun, or wear condoms, or undergo operations to stop themselves from having children.

In the same way about food - people often diet or fast.

So we're looking at only a few thousand years of history, and even in this period, there's always been women who were available to more than one man. So where's the evolutionary adaptation?

hmm.. That is an interesting point.

However let me suggest the following solution: In the past, before and after the agricultural reovlution and settlement, women were traded for wealth.

To get a wife, a man would usually have to 'buy" her by selling flock or stock.

So people without this, migt have probably turned to raping women that they couldn't have.

[flipside]

I found this too difficult for me.

Are we saying that Darwinism is that which is best for us and that we naturally follow it.

Or are we saying that Judeo-Christian morality is best and that which is best for our social group is the best course of action.

Can someone a LOT,LOT smarter than me explain the arguements as it sounds very interesting.

[Whaleboy]

Cant be bothered to read it, but I love Azazels avatar!

Someone want to provide a summary for one with tired eyes?

[BeBMan]

It says relativism is bad

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by flipside
Or are we saying that Judeo-Christian morality is best and that which is best for our social group is the best course of action.

The problem is that eg. muslims (or others) think that about their views as well - so who´s right?

I think the only answer is here to separate morality from religion. Noone will seriously say that our western moral values were not heavily influenced by Christianity, but that doesn´t make Christianity the only source of morality ever. Today logic and reason are (IMO) better indicators for what is moral or not. That doesn´t mean you can´t be religious anymore if you wish.

[Whaleboy]

It says relativism is bad

How can they call themselves human?

[Whaleboy]

Morality is such an ambiguous, subjective term that it is of little or no use in such a debate. I would rather that people either specify or assume a particular "moral" view, i.e. killing is wrong, when engaging in a debate.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
It doesn't interefere. The actual success of fullfilling the urge is unrelated to the urge itself.

However, an urge that is reproductively unsuccessful more often than not would tend to disappear.

However let me suggest the following solution: In the past, before and after the agricultural reovlution and settlement, women were traded for wealth.

To get a wife, a man would usually have to 'buy" her by selling flock or stock.

So people without this, migt have probably turned to raping women that they couldn't have.

Before the agricultural revolution, there were no flocks (animal husbandry is agriculture), hence no wealth to be traded. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence of humans as property before the agricultural revolution.



Also consider that the children of rape were likely to be exposed or killed with the mother.

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah
How can they call themselves human?

Depends on how you describe human.

[Berzerker]

Lincoln, if rape is a natural consequence of evolution, wouldn't the concept of morality also be a natural consequence of evolution? The author seems to argue that morality has no place under Darwinianism when it actually does just as any other behavior providing (arguably of course) an evolutionary advantage.

There is a downside to humans developing morality though, with the intelligence required for such a concept comes the intelligence to kill other humans for all sorts of reasons - we don't see mass murder within animal species except for rare cases involving certain primates involved in tribal warfare.

But let's be fair, Lincoln, religious folk who never believed in evolution have done their share of killing, so why is religion a moral concept? Is it because the positive side of religion is something worth striving for while the negative side should not be used to indict the positive? Then by that same token, wouldn't it be unfair to indict the positive side of evolution - the "evolved" concept of morality - by pointing to the negative aspects like rape?

[Sirotnikov]

Azazel - you have a message of mine waiting for you in the Bush Picture thread.

Your PM box is full.

[Sirotnikov]

However, an urge that is reproductively unsuccessful more often than not would tend to disappear.

It has only become reproductively unsuccessful in the 20th century, no?

Before the agricultural revolution, there were no flocks (animal husbandry is agriculture), hence no wealth to be traded. As far as we can tell, there is no evidence of humans as property before the agricultural revolution.

Not true. You are tying agricultural revolution to animals and it's not true.

Vagabonds and wanderers have always kept stocks and flocks. Take for example the bushmans in north africa and the beduins in Israel.

Also consider that the children of rape were likely to be exposed or killed with the mother.

Not always.
A child is another hunter. A mother wouldn't always complain. Heck, even now most women don't complain.

[Berzerker]

Harvard professor Michael Sandel, in Democracy’s Discontent, says the major political divide in America today lies precisely here--between those who believe that morality is indeed up for grabs, something we construct for ourselves and, on the other hand, those who believe morality is "given" in some way--grounded in divine relevation or human nature or in some other objective manner.

The problem with all this is that even those (most of course) who are religious and see morality based on divine revelation pay lip service to a set morality and practice a morality that is "up for grabs". For example, Jerry Falwell calls himself a Christian which identifies him with Jesus and his teachings. But what does Falwell teach? Punish sick people for using medicinal pot. Did Jesus teach this? Of course not. So where did Falwell get his "religion and morality"? He invented it! "Morality" is up for grabs and those with the most guns will win.

Lincoln, I think it's really strange that the people who are most likely to preach and practice an objective morality are atheists and agnostics - they're called "objectivists" and libertarians (except for those pro-choicers ). Not most of these religious folks...