(September 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If the only basis of morality in nature comes from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" then it's not really any kind of morality at all. Welcome to naturalism.

Ignoring of on the naturalistic moral frameworks that argue for moral realism are we?

(September 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If the only basis of morality in nature comes from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" then it's not really any kind of morality at all. Welcome to naturalism.

Even if the only basis of morality in nature was from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" - which is most emphatically not the case - it'd still be a kind of morality.

Some actions cause great harm and or negative effects. Therefore it is logical not to engage in them frequently.

Some actions don't cause obvious harm but may do so in the long run.

Some actions only cause distress in some cases or in a certain group or individual. They are at best trivial.

People like to use audible labels to signify their ideas.

(September 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If the only basis of morality in nature comes from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" then it's not really any kind of morality at all. Welcome to naturalism.

And we have established on this very forum over the last week that this is how God works. No need to justify his immoral actions, no need to worry over his failure to comply with even the seven deadly sins. He's God - he's all powerful and therefore he's right and just.

Oh - and you have to love him - because he commands it! What was the most important commandment according to Jesus?

---

Survival of the fittest doesn't actually quite mean what theists understand. It does not refer to the individual - it refers to the species and fittest means best adapted to their environment.

Very often you will find the biggest and strongest does not survive longer, on average, than other members of a pride, clan, group w.h.y.

Of course there's morality in nature. People are moral, at least sometimes.

(September 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: Even if the only basis of morality in nature was from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" - which is most emphatically not the case...

If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case. Animals always act according to their animal instinct. For that matter, many humans seem incapable of transcending their own animal instincts. Only Man has the intellect capable of discerning moral principles and formulating codes of behaviour - be it the "golden rule", categorical imperatives, or simple taboos.

(September 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: - it'd still be a kind of morality.

Not in any meaningful sense related to choice and responsibility.

(September 24, 2013 at 7:46 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If that were so then you would see individual members of various species acting in ways that go contrary to their animal nature. That is never the case. Animals always act according to their animal instinct.

Um, excuse me? Did you do any research before you said that? I think not...

(September 23, 2013 at 11:14 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If the only basis of morality in nature comes from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" then it's not really any kind of morality at all. Welcome to naturalism.

Even if the only basis of morality in nature was from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" - which is most emphatically not the case - it'd still be a kind of morality.

I suspect you mean in the sense that the feeling of must or must not in human morality probably is built on something instinctual. No doubt these inhibitive impulses have been fine tuned by nature through evolution in pro-social directions for the most part. All the rationalizing and systematizing of course come in secondarily.

Quote:I only thought of this because I didn't think morality existed anywhere in nature except for man.

how? haven't you ever seen a dog cower in guilt because they know you're just about to walk into a room with a tipped over trashcan?
there's experiments even where monkeys are starved and only given food if they push a button that electrocutes other monkeys. those monkeys would rather starve, which is actually a quite different outcome from the human version of that experiment

(September 23, 2013 at 8:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: If the only basis of morality in nature comes from survival of the fittest and "might makes right" then it's not really any kind of morality at all. Welcome to naturalism.

In social species, cooperation, altruism, kin selection are part of the survival mechanism. 'Fit' members of social species are naturally good at these attributes. Unfit members, get ejected from the social structure.

In Bonobos, our closest cousins, unfit members are often those that try to take over the group by using 'might makes right' tactics. Individuals that try this are usually violently ejected from the group.

Welcome to your misunderstanding of 'survival of the fittest'.