religion

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OK seiously last postd fuck this... but:

It takes roughly 14, 18, 20 years to raise a human being. Prior to that, we are physically, emotionally (debatable), and intellectually weak. From an evolutionary standpoint, having some form of marriage, monogamy, polygamy, etc... makes sense because an infant would need protecting that a mother couldn't give alone. Once you start having units like that, it stands to reason that we'd expand our "group" to include more than just our parents and children. We then include grandchildren, cousins, nephews, etc... you see where I'm going with this.

At a certain point, you have a society, and since we are social, and since we have different talents, we must work together to maximize our rate of survival. Very simplistic, but I definitely believe morality actually makes perfect sense evolutionarily speaking. If humans ONLY fight one another, and never work together, we'd all be fucked.

I disagree. That theory posits that organization among animals leads to morality.
If we have groups of animals then we should see the same morality as humans have in the animal kingdom.

For instance a lion tribe is dependent upon a patriarchal system of protection from rival tribes and a matriarchal system to provide food.
However no high morality is seen in a lion tribe, the fathers of cubs often kill their own progeny if the perceive a competitive threat.
And the food providing mothers do not make sure that the weakest cub gets the food first.
They have no high moral function that guides their lives as humans do.

For that matter if evolution of morals was contingent upon group protection then large flocks of birds or schools of fish should be the highest of moral agents as they have had much more time in the evolutionary scale than humans to work out their moral evolution based upon their large groups of flocks and schools.

Morality is a strictly human product. If a horse kicks in the head and kills his owner who has raised him from a foal, feeding him, training him, making sure he is in good health, that horse feels no remorse for the death of his owner. He does not feel guilt over it. He has no morality. Yet horses travel in large groups and evolved in the same environment as humans.

So what made humans capable of morality? It would have to be our high intelligence.

So how does a mind evolve to the point of having morality and intelligence? After all a mind is not biological it cannot evolve and grow on a Darwinian biological model.

[Barkingturtle]

Quit being stupid, fuckers.

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

When a daddy lion eats its young -- that's lion morality, baby.

What you're failing to describe is empathy, which many lower life forms exhibit. Empathy serves an evolutionary purpose, while morality is primarily used to control the actions and thoughts of man.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Quit being stupid, fuckers.

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

When a daddy lion eats its young -- that's lion morality, baby.

What you're failing to describe is empathy, which many lower life forms exhibit. Empathy serves an evolutionary purpose, while morality is primarily used to control the actions and thoughts of man.

You're right empathy is far different than morality. Morality is the check and balance to emotions such as empathy.

For example, an empathetic person may look at the plight of a terminally ill person and conclude it would be the empathetic thing to put that person out of their misery.
After all their quality of life is not up to human standards.
But morality checks that emotional thought and says "no that's wrong".
Thus the reason assisted suicide is illegal in civilized countries.

Morality, not emotions is the guiding compass of mankind.
Yet is not present in the animal kingdom from which we are supposed to have descended.
So how did it evolve?

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by RobotElvis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're right empathy is far different than morality. Morality is the check and balance to emotions such as empathy.

For example, an empathetic person may look at the plight of a terminally ill person and conclude it would be the empathetic thing to put that person out of their misery.
After all their quality of life is not up to human standards.
But morality checks that emotional thought and says "no that's wrong".
Thus the reason assisted suicide is illegal in civilized countries.

Morality, not emotions is the guiding compass of mankind.
Yet is not present in the animal kingdom from which we are supposed to have descended.
So how did it evolve?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Barkingturtle]

I just explained it. I suspect the gap between our intellects is hindering our communication. I'll repeat myself for your benefit, but just this once:

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

Concepts are invented, not evolved.

Your conceptualization of morality is arbitrary.

Your premise is flawed from the very fucking outset -- the epitome of the Creationist.

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by radditsu [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I explained it with a picture bark. Dont lower your glory down to him.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just explained it. I suspect the gap between our intellects is hindering our communication. I'll repeat myself for your benefit, but just this once:

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

Concepts are invented, not evolved.

Your conceptualization of morality is arbitrary.

Your premise is flawed from the very fucking outset -- the epitome of the Creationist.

Ok let's use your logic of morality being a concept.
Religion is also in your mind a concept I'm sure.
Yet many people feel that they have transcended the concept of religion in their personal humanity. Concepts after all are not hereditary put acquired and can be regard or disregarded as useful.

So then at what point will it become acceptable to transcend the concept of morality on human evolution? What keeps morality as a more viable human concept than religion or worship?

[Barkingturtle]

I want you to try that again. Take some time, organize your thoughts, maybe even examine them, then try again.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I want you to try that again. Take some time, organize your thoughts, maybe even examine them, then try again.

Ok maybe I will be more simple and clear for you then you can understand.

You claim morality is a concept. Concepts are acquired and not hereditary.

Religion/worship is a concept it is the not hereditary but acquired.

However morality unlike religion is universally immutable to the human family regardless of your concept of religion/worship.

Example: the irreligious regime of the Khmer Rouge killed millions of people. If morality is nothing more than a concept then we have to accept that as their view of what is right and wrong. Their concept of morality. They were not influenced by the concept of religion after all.

Are you willing to say that the Khmer Rouge were in their own moral concept of right and wrong not immoral in their actions?

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just explained it. I suspect the gap between our intellects is hindering our communication. I'll repeat myself for your benefit, but just this once:

Morality is a concept, not a trait.

Concepts are invented, not evolved.

Your conceptualization of morality is arbitrary.

Your premise is flawed from the very fucking outset -- the epitome of the Creationist.

So in your view evolution can account for morality. However you also state that morality is a concept that is invented and not evolved, thus negating your claim of morality evolving by evolutionary means. After all only genetic traits are passed along to future generations, not invented concepts like morality.