Jump to content
IGNORED

Is there a universal moral law?


EnochBethany

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

Yeah, you provided me with a lame explanation that is pretty much based in fiction.

 

 

How about this....understanding that you know evolution is false, explain to me how evolution could lead to empathy.  Again, I know you don't adhere to the theory, but do you understand the theory  well enough to explain it?  I posit if you can't explain it your understanding is lacking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
.understanding that you know evolution is false, explain to me how evolution could lead to empathy.

 

It can't lead to empathy.  That's my point.   You were asked by Luftwaffle how it leads to empathy and you blew the question off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

I gave a very simple explanation a couple posts down.

 

 

I'm assuming you're referring to this post, "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 reproduce. Very simple."

 

If so then it's not really a response to the question, "How does one derive empathy from a physical process?".

I would have to agree with Shiloh, this is merely a just-so assertion that empathy has evolved because it supposedly improves survivability.

 

Be that as it may...

 

You've claimed that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". This seems to be incorrect. I can think of a number of social species such as ants and bees that do not seem to possess an ability to have empathy. Would you care to justify why you believe that without empathy a social species couldn't survive?

 

Furthermore even among species that are claimed to possess this ability, their behaviour is far from what would be 'acceptable' in human terms. Wolves and lions sometimes eat their young for instance. The evolutionary explanation for this behaviour will no doubt also refer to increasing the survival of the group.

It seems then that a vast number of behaviours whether showing empathy or showing the opposite can be explained by appealing to survival.

 

Secondly, I empathy is just a means to increase survivability we're back to your original claim of "what is good for survival is good morally". Appealing to empathy hasn't really added anything new to this discussion which means we're still dealing with morality being an illusion to help human beings survive. As such you'll need to deal with the implications.

 

This means that if a crime, let's say rape has no apparently effect on the survival of the species, then there's nothing morally wrong with it.

Conversely an act that decreases the survival of the species is automatically immoral, according to this view. This raises interesting questions regarding things like birth control, extreme sports, homosexuality and abortion, but that's a different discussion.

As such any act can be justified if one believes that one's actions are best for the survival of the group, where group can really mean anything from family to mankind?

 

Thirdly, as you've put it in post #48, "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."

Since we're not subject to natural selection anymore what reason is there to care about whether our behaviour is good for the group or not? It seems then that not only is morality reality an illusion according to the naturalistic worldview, but it's a superfluous one at that.

 

So while you've claimed in post #52 that there is right and wrong, you've not shown this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

I gave a very simple explanation a couple posts down.

 

 

I'm assuming you're referring to this post, "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 reproduce. Very simple."

 

If so then it's not really a response to the question, "How does one derive empathy from a physical process?".

I would have to agree with Shiloh, this is merely a just-so assertion that empathy has evolved because it supposedly improves survivability.

 

Be that as it may...

 

You've claimed that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". This seems to be incorrect. I can think of a number of social species such as ants and bees that do not seem to possess an ability to have empathy. Would you care to justify why you believe that without empathy a social species couldn't survive?

 

Furthermore even among species that are claimed to possess this ability, their behaviour is far from what would be 'acceptable' in human terms. Wolves and lions sometimes eat their young for instance. The evolutionary explanation for this behaviour will no doubt also refer to increasing the survival of the group.

It seems then that a vast number of behaviours whether showing empathy or showing the opposite can be explained by appealing to survival.

 

Secondly, I empathy is just a means to increase survivability we're back to your original claim of "what is good for survival is good morally". Appealing to empathy hasn't really added anything new to this discussion which means we're still dealing with morality being an illusion to help human beings survive. As such you'll need to deal with the implications.

 

This means that if a crime, let's say rape has no apparently effect on the survival of the species, then there's nothing morally wrong with it.

Conversely an act that decreases the survival of the species is automatically immoral, according to this view. This raises interesting questions regarding things like birth control, extreme sports, homosexuality and abortion, but that's a different discussion.

As such any act can be justified if one believes that one's actions are best for the survival of the group, where group can really mean anything from family to mankind?

 

Thirdly, as you've put it in post #48, "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."

Since we're not subject to natural selection anymore what reason is there to care about whether our behaviour is good for the group or not? It seems then that not only is morality reality an illusion according to the naturalistic worldview, but it's a superfluous one at that.

 

So while you've claimed in post #52 that there is right and wrong, you've not shown this.

 

You are making my case for me...ants will not harm members of their own colony, but will fight to the death with other colonies....why, so they can pass on their genes.  This reluctance to harm "their own" is translated to empathy as we evolved consciousness.  You mentioned lions...they will kill the offspring of the male they male they defeated to become alpha, but will not harm their own. 

 

The irony is you see the bible trying to make sense of this "animal instinct" we have evolved.  The Jews were lions killing the Canaanites who were in their way, but not their own.  They kept slaves, but were much more lax on the rules for Jewish slaves.  Even using the Bible, it is easy to see we humans as animals came from the same common ancestor as all the organisms around us.  Religion tries to tell us different, but realign ignores evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  820
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   261
  • Days Won:  7
  • Joined:  01/09/2011
  • Status:  Offline

Hi jerryR34,

 

I'm my previous post (#68) I made three major points:

 

In my first point I countered your claim that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". I offered ants and bees as examples of social species surviving without empathy. While you've claimed that this made your case for you, I don't see how because it seems that you agree that ants do not possess empathy. My point that empathy isn't a necessary condition for the survival of a social species stands.

 

The main argument I made in my first point was that both "moral" and "immoral" behavior can seemingly be explained by the same naturalistic mechanism that you're appealing to. You mentioned that male lions will eat the cubs of a defeated lion, and this is precisely my point. In human terms this would be considered immoral. If human being did in fact eat their young, you'd no doubt use this behavior as proof of our moral heritage.
In addition you've mentioned the Canaanites and slavery as examples of our animal instincts, but it seems you view those as examples of bad behavior. Notice thus, how you're supporting my point. The mechanism you're appealing to to explain the "bad" behavior of the Jews is the same mechanism you're using to explain good behavior in other human beings.

 

Developing this point further then we see the evolutionary mechanism explaining both "immoral" and "moral" behavior according to your paradigm, which means the criminal is as much biologically determined to crime as the non-criminal is biology determined in the opposite direction. In other words no real right or wrong, but rather just biological cause-and-effect. How does one get from this to saying that a certain naturalistic process is morally good and another naturalistic process is morally bad? Ultimately if we've nothing but  naturalistic processing then the selection of moral values becomes arbitrary and meaningless, in the same way as pointing to a cup of boiling water as calling it wicked.

 

My second point tied in with this, and you haven't addressed it at all. The whole empathy discussion really just takes us back to you original point that what is good for survival is good morally and what is bad for survival is bad morally. According to your view then, when we say "good" we're really just saying "improves survival of the species".
But there isn't a one to one mapping between survivability and what is generally considered moral. I have asked if raping something would be fine provided that the rape didn't hamper the survival of the human species and I have yet to get an answer to this question.
If morality is just a means of making statements about survivability, then all one would need to do to defend any action is to claim that you believed it improved the survival of mankind. You have not responded to this either.

 

In my third point I quoted you saying, "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."
I mentioned that if this is the case, then morality as you define it becomes superfluous. You have not responded to this.

 

In you last post you claimed, "The irony is you see the bible trying to make sense of this "animal instinct" we have evolved.  The Jews were lions killing the Canaanites who were in their way, but not their own.  They kept slaves, but were much more lax on the rules for Jewish slaves.  Even using the Bible, it is easy to see we humans as animals came from the same common ancestor as all the organisms around us.  Religion tries to tell us different, but realign ignores evidence."

 

It seems what you're doing here is reinterpreting the bible according to your paradigm and then claiming the bible supports your paradigm. According to the Biblical evidence the conquest of Canaan most certainly wasn't "lions" killing whoever was in their way.

In terms of slavery it seems that you're selecting a human behaviours that can be interpreted in a way that's consistent with evolution and then claiming this as proving evolution and thus that human morality has evolved from animal behaviour. This is at best a very weak argument, and it doesn't actually address the topic, which deals with the nature of morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

Hi jerryR34,

 

I'm my previous post (#68) I made three major points:

 

In my first point I countered your claim that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". I offered ants and bees as examples of social species surviving without empathy. While you've claimed that this made your case for you, I don't see how because it seems that you agree that ants do not possess empathy. My point that empathy isn't a necessary condition for the survival of a social species stands.

And I countered that.  Ants and bees evolved a social structure and sociable behaviors within their colonies and hives.  We view this behavior now through our evolved consciousness and try to overlay morality on our species behavior when it is reall the same thing as the ants and bees getting along.  It's nothing more than the fact that we evolved empathy based on the fact we do better as a group than individually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

Hi jerryR34,

 

I'm my previous post (#68) I made three major points:

 

In my first point I countered your claim that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". I offered ants and bees as examples of social species surviving without empathy. While you've claimed that this made your case for you, I don't see how because it seems that you agree that ants do not possess empathy. My point that empathy isn't a necessary condition for the survival of a social species stands.

And I countered that.  Ants and bees evolved a social structure and sociable behaviors within their colonies and hives.  We view this behavior now through our evolved consciousness and try to overlay morality on our species behavior when it is reall the same thing as the ants and bees getting along.  It's nothing more than the fact that we evolved empathy based on the fact we do better as a group than individually. 

 

ants don't empathize, that's his point.   You make a lot of claims there that you can' support, or at least you haven't tried to support them.  You keep making assertions and as if your assertions count a proof, and they dont.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

:thumbsup:

 

Beloved... If You Don't Want To Understand Something

 

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.

 

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:20-22

 

There's A Good Chance

 

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

 

You

 

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

 

Won't

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  153
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/04/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/05/1997

 

 

Hi jerryR34,

 

I'm my previous post (#68) I made three major points:

 

In my first point I countered your claim that "Social species could not survive if they did not evolve empathy". I offered ants and bees as examples of social species surviving without empathy. While you've claimed that this made your case for you, I don't see how because it seems that you agree that ants do not possess empathy. My point that empathy isn't a necessary condition for the survival of a social species stands.

And I countered that.  Ants and bees evolved a social structure and sociable behaviors within their colonies and hives.  We view this behavior now through our evolved consciousness and try to overlay morality on our species behavior when it is reall the same thing as the ants and bees getting along.  It's nothing more than the fact that we evolved empathy based on the fact we do better as a group than individually. 

 

ants don't empathize, that's his point.   You make a lot of claims there that you can' support, or at least you haven't tried to support them.  You keep making assertions and as if your assertions count a proof, and they dont.

 

 

just because you do'nt see or accept the proof, doesn't mean there is none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

just because you do'nt see or accept the proof, doesn't mean there is none.

 

If there were proof, we would not be having this discussion.  Big Bang theorists need to be more honest about the evidence and admit that at best it is just a hypothesis.  There is no way we prove exactly what the origin of the universe looked like.

 

All I can say is that I take on faith that God created the universe in six days just as He said and He doesn't lie or make mistakes.   The Big Bang is no less a faith-based statement than when I say that God is the Creator.   I simply possess enough honesty to admit that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...