Lesbians leading the way in eugenics

[Ben Kenobi]

then after I point out that evolution can explain a sense of right and wrong

And exactly how does this occur? Animals don't act in the same way that we do. Shouldn't we expect them to, if we inherited our sense of morality from them?

you switch over to saying morality somehow transcends the natural world.

It is. Who decides whether an action is or is not "good". Again, is it bad to eat other people? Why? Animals eat people. They eat each other.

[Ben Kenobi]

Either you're lying or you're retarded.

Did that argument appear on your dissertation?

"Your opinions suck"

yadda yadda yadda.

WHY? Simple question.

[loinburger]

#1 reason to put Ben on ignore: he can't think of a single reason not to kill and eat people other than "god told me not to."

WHY? Simple question.

You are the only person here who wants to kill and eat people. Is there really any point to our trying to explain morality to somebody who is as stunted as you are? No, it's a waste of time. You're not interested in engaging in honest dialogue, all you're going to do is quote-mine our responses in order to post more retarded strawmen.

Is there a secular ethical reason not to kill and eat people? Yes. Do you care? No. Jump up your butt.

[giblets]

And exactly how does this occur? Animals don't act in the same way that we do. Shouldn't we expect them to, if we inherited our sense of morality from them?

I should stop biting, but you can read this if you want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't base my morality on what animals do.

You're the one arguing that nature is the base of morality.

C'mon loin, quit dodging.

[loinburger]

I don't base my morality on what animals do.

Neither do I. Neither does anybody else here. Like I said, you're not interested in engaging in honest dialogue - you're just interested in latching onto words like "naturalistic" and twisting their context into strawmen about cannibalism. Poop in your mouth.

[Ben Kenobi]

So I can quote scripture?

Quoting wikipedia means I can quote the bible.

Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression

Romans 4:15

[Ben Kenobi]

morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative.

Go fight it out with Loin, gribbler.

I took a course on sociobiology. It's interesting that this thread has taken a turn down this route.

How does sociobiology explain the propagation of moral behaviour over the suppression of immoral behaviour?

Doesn't it make more sense that human collaboration would propagate moral and immoral behaviour?

[giblets]

I have no idea what Ben is trying to ask.

[loinburger]

"...therefore the Bible and the Pope are 100% correct."

[Ben Kenobi]

I have no idea what Ben is trying to ask.

I'm arguing that when groups of people get together they can teach other not only moral, but also immoral behaviour.

Why would moral behaviour propagate more successfully?

Why do we still see immoral behaviour persist if this is an evolutionary process? Shouldn't those who like and indulge in immoral behaviour die off?

Is it possible for behaviour that we consider to be 'moral' and behaviour that we consider 'immoral' to be swapped? That a society which prefers immoral behaviour shun those who choose moral behaviours?

From what I can see is that there isn't a specific evolutionary advantage to 'moral' behaviours. Getting married and staying married is a limitation and a restriction on our natural impulses. There isn't an evolutionary advantage to helping others you don't know, secretly, and yet this is considered to be a huge virtue. There isn't an evolutionary advantage to truth-telling, and yet all forms of morality share the same code against lying.

Another argument. Say we accept your position that moral behaviours provide an evolutionary advantage. Does this mean that a society that embraces sodomy will die out?

[Heraclitus]

Can everyone ignore this debate with Ben please? Its a clear threadjack.

[Barnabas]

I think Ben does not get enough praise for his trolling skills, he is trolling at a high level in this thread, I aprove

[Maniac]

First point, even if you disprove evolutionary views on the biological origins of common human morality, you do not prove the correctness of a divine origin of morality.

Why do we still see immoral behaviour persist if this is an evolutionary process? Shouldn't those who like and indulge in immoral behaviour die off?

What society considers "moral" is usually what is good for that society. However what is good for society is often but not always what is good for the individual. Rape and adultery for instance can destabilize society, however they can still be a good procreation strategy for a male individual. Apparently good enough for a tendency to rape to to be continued in a portion of the population over the generations. Neither complete altruism nor complete egoism are clearly superior in terms of survival, hence both tendencies continue to exist in our genome, which can cause conflict and uncertainty what is the best behaviour in certain situations.

Explained simple enough?

[Ben Kenobi]

First point, even if you disprove evolutionary views on the biological origins of common human morality, you do not prove the correctness of a divine origin of morality.

Ahh, very true. I acknowledge this, I have to make some other arguments wrt to the divine origin of human morality, ones I haven't made here yet.

What society considers "moral" is usually what is good for that society.

This was already dealt with. There are three arguments which compete with each other.

1. Morality is transcendent.
2. Morality is a construct of society
3. Morality is the process of evolution in human society to improve survival.

2, and 3, do not agree with each other.

3, argues that human societies which practice immorality will wither and die. 2, denies this, saying that morality is simply relative.

So if you are making the argument that morality is a construct, you have abandoned 3, and rely on 2.

However what is good for society is often but not always what is good for the individual. Rape and adultery for instance can destabilize society, however they can still be a good procreation strategy for a male individual.

Granted. This is a Kantian argument.

Apparently good enough for a tendency to rape to to be continued in a portion of the population over the generations. Neither complete altruism nor complete egoism are clearly superior in terms of survival, hence both tendencies continue to exist in our genome, which can cause conflict and uncertainty what is the best behaviour in certain situations.

Expected solution. Well said.

However, this raises a problem. How are we aware of a higher morality, if in fact it is disadvantageous to survival? If it truly were most beneficial to society to have a mix of altruism and egoism, why is altruism considered a virtue and egoism a vice? Wouldn't we simply expect that practices which are most effective for survival to be labelled a virtue? Yet, that's not what we see.

This is why I argue that morality is divine in nature. The source is not people, because people all disagree and no one is inclined to condemn their own actions. If we have a law, a natural law written on our hearts, then this would push us towards complying with the law in our own actions, even though we could ignore the law, to such an extent that we cease to hear it.

It also solves the problem of propagation. If everyone comes with their own 'built-in' instruction code, then everyone has personal access to the divine Law. This is why the question of whether morality or immorality propagates isn't an issue, because we start out with perfect knowledge of the law which falls away and decays over time.

Thanks for the interesting reply, maniac.