Morality and Darwinism

[BeBMan]

Re: Re: Re: Morality and Darwinism

Originally posted by Lincoln
That is nice but what does society as a whole base morality on? If it rests on a material foundation what law of nature undergirds it? You, no doubt, have reasonable moral standard for your own life but how can that standard endure for others who must formulate some type of guidlines for society? Reason means different things to different people. Some people reason that they should be in charge and everyone else should serve them. How do you prevent such abuses. Do you just say; "now let's just be reasonable"?

And exactly why we found out that this would open up the gates for abuse it is not reasonable Those people would have to justify why they should be in charge, and not anybody else. And no, they cannot justify this reasonably - not when you ask what is best (or morale) for the entire society. Maybe it would be great for those people themselves to rule, but one can´t seriously argue that it would be great for society as a whole when we already know the potential for abuse.

Reason and logic are basically the same for all - whatever the discussion is, you argue reasonable, or not reasonable. For our societies this means: what principles should we use to make the society work? And then you can make easily morale principles without religion. One could even argue that morale principles, even those you find in religious text were always made since people thought they work best for them. A principle like "do not murder" is not only "good" it is simply neccessary to make your society survive. The opposite "go, kill everyone you like" would not be a reasonable choice, because than a society would exterminate itself.

[Lincoln]

How about "go and kill everyone you don't like"?

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Mercator
Just
And... Does that mean you think we atheists are immoral?

No, I just agree with Asmodean that present day morality is borrowed from theism. I just wonder what will happen when it has to stand on it's own. If recent history is any judge it hasn't done too well. Of course theism didn't do too well either during the Inquisition...

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Lincoln
How about "go and kill everyone you don't like"?

Sounds good first, but then those others might try the same...

[Lincoln]

The basis of morality is now based on the following:

"WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

What is the basis of morality if there is no "Creator" to endow anyone with rights? Where do they come from then? If one was to say that they come from reasonable men that is well and good but history shows us that all men are not reasonable so reason seems to be an infirm foundation with no enduring basis unless people continue to borrow from theism. I guess we should all hope that they do.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by BeBro


Sounds good first, but then those others might try the same...

I'll tell you what BeFro. I wouldn't mind having you as my neighbor. I certainly appreciate your contribution to this forum.

[chequita guevara]

Lincoln, imagine a society with no morals and no laws. Would you want to live there? Is that not basis enough for morals? Morals/laws help us to lead safer, happier, more productive lives. We may disagree about which morals are right or wrong, but none of wants to live in a society where anything goes, not even anarchists. The simplest moral rules is; an ye harm none, do what thou wilst. An ye harm none

As Hillel said, That which is hateful unto yourself, do not do unto others.

Jeshua said, Love the neighbor as yourself.

Bill & Ted said, Be excellent to each other.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
No, I just agree with Asmodean that present day morality is borrowed from theism.

If modern morality is borrowed from theism, your morality has its antecednets in paganism. Our moder laws are based on Rome and Greece, both pagan nations. Christianity is based on Greek and Jewish sources. Judaism is based on Egyptian and Sumerian sources.

Now you have a conundrum. If all morality comes from the Creator, how did Egypt and Sumer have moral and ethical codes? Although those who have studied the history of religion would argue that the diety that modern Christians, Moslems, Jews, Bahais, etc worsihp today is directly decended from a specific Sumerian diety, El, a god of mountains and fire (and not the chief god of Sumer either), I doubt you'd accept that.

So how did these societies have a set of moral codes which have survived in cuniform tablets and hyroglyphs to be read today?

[Berzerker]

Elok -

The bible isn't the complete Christian faith. It's a set of rules and guidelines. It's the basics. Theology books exist for a reason. Now don't be ridiculous.

That's why Christianity has been corrupted, because the Bible isn't the complete Christian faith. People seeking power have added their own little philosophies to what Jesus said and the result is a convoluted religion bearing little semblance to what Jesus taught.

And unless Hamlet's Mill somehow reinterprets Dante so that he doesn't depict the IRS Judgment delusion, which is a pretty tall order seeing as the book spends most of its time describing gruesome punishments for specific infringements, I'm not interested. I don't question its artistic merit, but as an actual representation of the Christian faith or philosophy The Inferno is useless.

Dante is a mix of ideas from Christianity, Roman, Greek, and earlier cultures. I'm not into all the religious stuff, just the cosmogonic parts of Dante and that's what Hamlet's Mill deals with. Dante's value is not "works or faith", it's evidence of ancient knowledge that our "primitive" ancestors should not have had...

[Lincoln]

I was following you Che until you got to the "Bill & Ted" part. Who is Bill & Ted?

[Berzerker]

Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was a movie about a couple guys going back in time to witness events...I think...

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If modern morality is borrowed from theism, your morality has its antecednets in paganism. Our moder laws are based on Rome and Greece, both pagan nations. Christianity is based on Greek and Jewish sources. Judaism is based on Egyptian and Sumerian sources.

Now you have a conundrum. If all morality comes from the Creator, how did Egypt and Sumer have moral and ethical codes? Although those who have studied the history of religion would argue that the diety that modern Christians, Moslems, Jews, Bahais, etc worsihp today is directly decended from a specific Sumerian diety, El, a god of mountains and fire (and not the chief god of Sumer either), I doubt you'd accept that.

So how did these societies have a set of moral codes which have survived in cuniform tablets and hyroglyphs to be read today?

When did I say that all morality comes from the creator? I said that our present form is based on certain rights that came from a creator.

[Sirotnikov]

Agathon - I think that you are right regarding the need to proclaim "what ever is good for darwinist evolution is moral".

However, the scientific claim is not actually that, but rather "what we now call moral, has been shaped by darwinist evolution".

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It has only become reproductively unsuccessful in the 20th century, no?[/q]

I'm arguing it's always been reproductively unsuccessful. There are only a few days a month a woman can conceive, so it often takes a sustained effort to get her pregnant (although this could be an argument for serial rapists, but how many of those do you think there were in small bands of humans).

Still a rapist stands a rather good chance. A better one that the one he gets if he doesn't rape and still can't get any women.

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.

Agricutlure refers to both plant and animal farming. Animal husbandry begins at nearly the same time as the agricutural revolution. You can't tame animals until you have something to tame them with, i.e., extra food.

While the two lifestyles are not mutually exclusive, people living on marginal land had to be nomadic since the animals would eat up all their food. Plus, Bushman and Beduin didn't exist 25,000 years ago.

I think it's wrong to refer to both animal and plant farming as agriculture.

I think that nomadic culture that has flocks or stocks is certainly not agricultural in the normal sense. And they tame animals using local food, which they don't grow themselves. So there goes that arguement.

Furthermore, I'm completely not convinced there weren't nomadic cultures 25K years ago.

I think the agricultural settlement was made some 19K years ago? (could be dead wrong. I watched a good show on this, but forgot actual dates).

Before, however, nomads existed with some flocks and stock.

And before animal flocks, there probably existed other trade of tools or furst.

Anyhoo - 25K years ago, an unsuccessfull nomad hunter-gatherer couldn't find a wife in his tribe or in the inter-tribal gathering meetings. He'd have to force his way to "get some".

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

In the age of women as property, men were unwilling to spend resources and energy raising another man's child. Another hunter is also another mouth to feed and a competitor with your children for your property. The whole point of making women into property was to control reproduction. If you arent going to control it, then you have no reason for marriage or harems.

But assuming a rapist rapes a "married" woman, she could have his child without the husband ever finding out. Infact, if she admits to have been raped, she'd probably lose her life, as the husband would fear adultery.

And before women were property, mating rituals were totally awkward in large orgies in inter-tribal meetings amongst other things. So I wo't speak on that little known issue

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Agathon - I think that you are right regarding the need to proclaim "what ever is good for darwinist evolution is moral".

However, the scientific claim is not actually that, but rather "what we now call moral, has been shaped by darwinist evolution".

Exactly what I said - it's an explanation, not a justification.