Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Is there a universal moral law?

74 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

If i raise a human in complete enclosure, so that has never contact with other humans, he will only live by the rules in himself that he has by nature.

so when he sees a human, he will think it's just an other animal and he will try to kill it to eat it.

he will certainly not think: hey, i may not kill that one.

 

i'll give another little exemple:

if you could go back in time and kill sadam hoesein, would you do that? (not including the time paradox)

you would still kill a person then, and that violates directly one of the 10 commandements.

 

or if you see a person on the ground, who is suffering terribly, and can not be helped anymore, and will die in some hours.

his suffering is enormous, gigantic, he is about to lose his mind.

would you kill him to end the horrific suffering?

because if you don't, you only let him die more slowly but with an incredible pain.

 

 

because of this, i don't think there is an universal moral law.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't like the term "universal moral law."   The real question is, is there an objective standard for judging what is moral and immoral?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If i raise a human in complete enclosure, so that has never contact with other humans, he will only live by the rules in himself that he has by nature.

so when he sees a human, he will think it's just an other animal and he will try to kill it to eat it.

he will certainly not think: hey, i may not kill that one.

How do you know this?

 

 

i'll give another little exemple:

if you could go back in time and kill sadam hoesein, would you do that? (not including the time paradox)

you would still kill a person then, and that violates directly one of the 10 commandements.

The ten commandments but refer to murder, not lawful killing.

 

 

or if you see a person on the ground, who is suffering terribly, and can not be helped anymore, and will die in some hours.

his suffering is enormous, gigantic, he is about to lose his mind.

would you kill him to end the horrific suffering?

because if you don't, you only let him die more slowly but with an incredible pain.

Giving such a situation killing the person would be an act of mercy.

 

 

because of this, i don't think there is an universal moral law.

Would you say that there are objective moral values and duties, though?

 

By the way, what's a Schouwenaar? Is it like a person in a show. An actor or a performer maybe? Or am I totally off the mark?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't like the term "universal moral law."   The real question is, is there an objective standard for judging what is moral and immoral?

I agree. Universal would refer to a moral law that applies in all cases, at all times and all places. While it may be argued that killing children only for fun would be a universal moral law, it kind of complicates things.

An objective moral standard is the better term because it refers to a mind-independent law, which is still subject to circumstance.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

i think that any moral law wetry to make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@luftwaffle: lawfull killing is just a nice and better word for lawfull murder. killing stays killing. taking away a soul and gift that god gave.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

Edited by Schouwenaars
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

Morals have nothing to do with evolution.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

i think that any moral law wetry to make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

I would have to disagree with you that everything I think is good will help our species grow and everything I think is bad will hurt our species.

For instance, I think that sexual promisquity is morally wrong, but if survival of our species is the measure of wrongness, then there seems to be no problem.

I also think rape is wrong, but I don't see how rape hampers the survival of our species. It certainly doesn't hinder the survival of many other species in the animal kingdom for which rape is part of natural behaviour.

I think it's good that men stay faithful to their wives, but surely spreading ones genes around seems logical if that's what we are to measure.

 

It seems then that your thesis that morality is merely a function of survival of the human race is incorrect.

 

If what you're saying is true, then when we're faced with an action we can call it right or wrong by looking at human survival. So if it's possible to rape a woman in such a way that it's pro-human survival we can call it good. Do you agree?

 

@luftwaffle: lawfull killing is just a nice and better word for lawfull murder. killing stays killing. taking away a soul and gift that god gave.

There is no such thing as lawful murder. Murder, by definition is unlawful.

 

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

Ahh ok. Didn't know that. I hope I didn't offend you by my question?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

minus the last sentence wich is don't fully undestand, you just perfectly formulated my thoughts :) thank you. i couldn't describe it better myself.

but don't think this is something is just came up with. i have thought many months about this subject. i have really really thought it trough, also in discussions with others.

Edited by Schouwenaars
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

minus the last sentence wich is don't fully undestand, you just perfectly formulated my thoughts :) thank you. i couldn't describe it better myself.

but don't think this is something is just came up with. i have thought many months about this subject. i have really really thought it trough, also in discussions with others.

 

 

I actually addressed the question to jerryR34, but you're welcome to answer.

 

Since both you and him do not believe that there really is such a thing as right and wrong, it would mean that both of you believe that right and wrong are evolutionary illusions, not so? A trick to help us survive...

 

So while it looks as if certain actions are wrong, they aren't really wrong. And while it looks like certain actions are virtuous they aren't really virtuous. So is it better to act as if morality is real and embrace the

illusion, or is it better to embrace the truth and live as if there is no right or wrong in anything you do?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

Morals have nothing to do with evolution.

 

All of our behaviors have to do with evolution.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

....All of our behaviors have to do with evolution....

 

~

 

One Lie

 

Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c )

 

After Another

 

How foolish can you be? He is the Potter, and he is certainly greater than you, the clay! Should the created thing say of the one who made it, "He didn't make me"? Does a jar ever say, "The potter who made me is stupid"? Isaiah 29:16 (NLT)

 

Does Not The Truth

 

But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 1 Corinthians 15:20-21

 

Make

 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:22

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

I think most people would get my drift.

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Faith

 

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

 

And The Dance Of Death

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

~

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?

 

~

 

The Devil

 

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12

 

Is In The Details

 

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

 

Can You Hear Him Now

 

Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(c )

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

 

 

That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

 

 

That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process?

 

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

 

If you had an understanding of evolution you could have answered the question instead of deflecting your inability to address an honest question by accusing him of not understanding evolution.  

 

Even ardent evolutionists admit that evolution can't really account for some things about humans.  it can't account for morality, empathy, self-evident truth, etc.  Evolution doesn't really speak to values, and ethics.  It speaks to physical development, not moral values or the ability of humans to feel empathy for another person.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

 

 

That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process?

 

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

 

 

Oh well...

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

 

If you had an understanding of evolution you could have answered the question instead of deflecting your inability to address an honest question by accusing him of not understanding evolution.  

 

Even ardent evolutionists admit that evolution can't really account for some things about humans.  it can't account for morality, empathy, self-evident truth, etc.  Evolution doesn't really speak to values, and ethics.  It speaks to physical development, not moral values or the ability of humans to feel empathy for another person.

 

There are all kinds of examples of empathy in the animal world especially in our closest relatives, the apes, chimps and bonobos.  Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy.  Evolution is simple...if a trait helps pass along genetic information the trait is passed on, if not, the organism does not live to reporduce.  Very simple.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i think that any law we make, how objective we think it might be, it will always stay subjective.

because what we think is good is typical for humans, for the continuing of our species.

it has been in our mind for tousands of years in order to survive.

our good and wrong is totally based on survival instinct.

check it yourself: everything you think is good, will help to let our species grow.

everything you think is wrong, will let our species disappear or will hurt our own species.

 

@ luftwaffle: Schouwenaars is just a random familyname here in flanders. nothing special :)

That makes no sense. 

 

Good and wrong based on survival instinct?  Where do you get that from?  Survival has nothing to do with what is good or evil.

 

Our morals evolved due to the fact we are a social species.  Traits that helped us pass on our genes were passed on.  You can see the same types of "moral" behaviors in our closest ape ancestors even though they can't read.

 

 

Suppose a person has a genetic condition which makes him anti-social. Since he is then an anti-social being, it would be morally normal for him to behave in anti-social ways, correct?

 

Are you saying that right and wrong are just illusions based on our evolution? That there isn't really right and wrong, but that our evolution tricked us into thinking there are such things as right and wrong so that we can better pass on our genes. Do you think holding illusions as truth is something that needs to be avoided?

 

 

 

The vast majority of humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.  Traits that would have died out in our more primitive times can be passed down now. 

 

 

 

Evolution is a process...how can you even say it "tricked us" with a straight face?  Anthropomorphizing things leads to wrong conclusions.

 

 

A mirage is also and yet it can be said with a perfectly straight face that many a wanderer was tricked into thinking it's water...

 

But you haven't really responded to my question. Do you embrace the truth that there is no right or wrong and live accordingly, or do you embrace the illusion and live as if right and wrong does exists, even though it doesn't?

 

No, there is right and wrong.  It's based on empathy that has been derived from evolution.

 

 

That's interesting. How is empathy derived from a physical process?

 

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

 

 

Oh well...

 

Yep...if you don't want to understand something, there's a good chance you won't

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

If you had any understanding of evolution (whether you believe it's the answer or not), you would not be asking that question.

 

If you had an understanding of evolution you could have answered the question instead of deflecting your inability to address an honest question by accusing him of not understanding evolution.  

 

Even ardent evolutionists admit that evolution can't really account for some things about humans.  it can't account for morality, empathy, self-evident truth, etc.  Evolution doesn't really speak to values, and ethics.  It speaks to physical development, not moral values or the ability of humans to feel empathy for another person.

 

There are all kinds of examples of empathy in the animal world especially in our closest relatives, the apes, chimps and bonobos.  Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy.  Evolution is simple...if a trait helps pass along genetic information the trait is passed on, if not, the organism does not live to reporduce.  Very simple.

 

The empathy traits are instinctual and put their by God.  God also hardwired animals with maternal instincts too as well as the need for self-preservation.  There is a balance in nature between the predator and prey so that the predator can survive without wiping out a particular species of prey to extinction.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0