Evolution cannot account for morality

[chiknsld]

It’s true that we’ve evolved very little since the time of khan.  We’ve been fully modern for 50k years, at least.  It’s not true that morality can’t be studied and the same standard used between people of different times.  That’s been done, and the results…so far as they can be inferred from historic sources and dig sites, are remarkably similar to the results you’ll get today….which is itself a study of different people who can and do believe different things just in our own time.  

Morality as expressed changes with a great many things.  There’s cultural relativity and individual subjectivity, ofc, but there’s also change in objective circumstance.  Point being, changes to the contents of our normative statements would be expected under any idea of what morality is.  Regardless of whether biological evolution occurred.  

It just so happens to be the case that it did, and since it did, and since that’s lead to changes in state and circumstance, any objective view of harm, for example, would change by necessity.  If an animal evolves an intelligence like ours and then proceeds to discover the world around them with that swanky new ability any objective view of -anything- would change…..again necessarily.

If you look at human history, and prehistory, with an eye for moral systems rather than individual moral dictates, you might notice that this is exactly what happened.  In sum, the idea that evolution…biological or cultural, doesn’t account for the existence of moral systems…in an ultra social species…no less…just doesn’t hold water.  OFC it can, and does.

That’s not likely to be the item of disagreement, though.  That’s more like does the mere existence of a moral dictate as a product of evolution certify that it’s contents are accurate, in fact.  That one, is a hard no.  There are alot of things that advantage our communities, our breeding populations…that are Not Great Bob.

There, ofc, I’m speaking from a realists perspective.  There are certainly people willing to say that whatever is natural is right….and owing to the indelible stamp of our lowly origin that idea probably wouldn’t cause any huge disruptions.  It’s fashionable to be a misanthrope, but we’re a remarkably goofy and peaceful animal given our size, needs, and potential for harm.  The fashionability of misanthropy itself a demonstration of our capacity for self scrutiny.  

This. Imo, is why and how so many of the so called axial religions failed as moral systems.  They were an attempt to fix broken man- but man is not actually broken, then or now.  A description of how to solve problems which do not exist…and…very often, by means that wouldn’t fix that problem if it did exist.  This is also why those moral systems are on perpetual guard against paganism by any name…as those systems are very often aligned at fixing environments rather than people, and the urge to employ them is never more than a fully natural urge away.

I think this accounts for a huge portion of moral skepticism today, but not rightly so.  That many people have gotten something wrong doesn’t certify that no one can get them right or that there is no accurate answer.  Similarly, that nature and mere existence does not certify a moral statement does not imply that nature and existence are uninformative.  

Does it make sense that we have instincts??  In a word, yes.  Would it make sense if our every instinct were aligned to a moral goal (assuming the latter as fact).  No.  Does a god have anything to do with any of this…assuming it exists?  No.

Where does evolution come from?  Organic chemistry.  I’m sure that we can all agree that chemistry is….powerful.

Okay so we chalk up life to chemistry, no problem. We say that inanimate matter transformed into life, by way of chemistry, okay fine. But you do not see anything weird with evolution only applying to life? 

And you have written a lot so I do not want you to think that I am discounting all that you said, but I also need to respond to others as well...

So, to reiterate, what is the problem with saying that matter evolved into life and life evolves into, idk, life that survives longer?

[chiknsld]

So you wouldn't agree that God is part of life but you would agree that morality is part of life? Again, is it possible for there to exist an advanced species with no morality? Sorry if my questions sound ignorant.

In my opinion, moral truths exist to the same extent that mathematical truths exist.  I don't think that a god is required to explain why 2 + 2 = 4, nor do I believe that a god is necessary to explain why the deliberate killing of innocent human beings is also wrong.

You do not think it is odd that truths exist?

[chiknsld]

What other kind of evolution is there?

Well I and a couple others have come to the agreement that evolution, at least biologically speaking is not accountable for evolution. It was literally in the thread Helios.

[The Grand Nudger]

It could have been a creation of social dynamics …,sure. Like just about everything else. Science- a creation of social dynamics. Cars, planes, trains and trucks…all of it.

I don’t think that means anything in particular beyond the boilerplate stuff of us needing to think carefully if we intend for it to be anything -other- than social dynamics.

No moral objectivist believes that morality comes from biological evolution, nor does any moral relativist. Though all moral theories are comfortable with the organ we use to assess and make moral assertions being a product of evolution…and all moral theories involve some interest.

No, I don’t see anything g weird about biological evolution only applying to life. It’s a very specific theory. Why and how would mountains evolve, for example, by descent with modification through genetic means…and then winnowed by variable survival rates?

You can use the term evolution generally…and people do think that there’s something like chemical evolution- but it’s not the same underlying theory or referring to the same specific thing.

I also dont see anything odd about the existence of facts. If states of affairs exist and can be accurately described…there are facts. If, in short, anything at all is knowable, then there are facts. Do you know your own name? Is it somehow funny or odd that you do?

[Belacqua]

Okay so we chalk up life to chemistry, no problem. We say that inanimate matter transformed into life, by way of chemistry, okay fine. But you do not see anything weird with evolution only applying to life? 

And you have written a lot so I do not want you to think that I am discounting all that you said, but I also need to respond to others as well...

So, to reiterate, what is the problem with saying that matter evolved into life and life evolves into, idk, life that survives longer?

Part of the problem no doubt comes from different meanings of the word "evolve." 

I can say that my views on politics have evolved over the years. Or that pop music has evolved a lot since the days of the Monkees. In those cases, "evolve" just means "change over time." And if that's the way one is using it, then yes, it would be OK to say that non-living matter evolved into life.

When people here use the word, though, it's shorthand for a very specific kind of change over time. Namely, the kind of thing that Darwin talked about. Genetic mutations cause differences in offspring, and these mutations may cause the offspring to be better adapted to an environment. This causes the species as a whole to change, or may cause different species to emerge. 

It's a kind of atheist-debate jargon. The word "evolution" always refers to that specific thing. As such, it requires something that's already alive, with genetic material that can mutate, to qualify as something that can evolve. 

The shorthand use may lack clarity. For example, if someone says "evolution explains it," they don't mean that gradual change over time itself is explanatory. They mean that the theory of evolution by natural selection as currently understood by scientists is a sufficient theory to explain the thing in question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Correcting misapprehensions of scientific theories is reduced to “atheist jargon”.

Christ almighty….

[chiknsld]

No, I don’t see anything g weird about biological evolution only applying to life.  It’s a very specific theory.  Why and how would mountains evolve, for example, by descent with modification through genetic means…and then winnowed by variable survival rates?

I also dont see anything odd about the existence of facts.  If states of affairs exist and can be accurately described…there are facts.   If, in short, anything at all is knowable, then there are facts.  Do you know your own name?  Is it somehow funny or odd that you do?

Sorry, let me be more clear if I have not already...You are describing evolution as a process, but what I am arguing is that evolution precedes life itself as a possibility and thus possibility is a "power" if you will, a force that exists. I even likened it to life itself, in that life is a possibility, and might not life then be a force? Some people do posit that there exists a life force. This force is a possibility that precedes the actualization of life. Even quantum mechanics utilizes the power of possibility.

[chiknsld]

Here is a quote from google:

What are quantum possibilities?

"In the framework of the de Broglie–Bohm theory, the quantum potential is a term within the Schrödinger equation which acts to guide the movement of quantum particles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_potential

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no life force. It is, in fact, a chemical process. Possibility is a description of what can happen. Not a force. This is the danger in sloppy use of terms.

Do you think that any of those claims are facts, or knowable…though? Disregard that we disagree. Do you think that there’s a way to assess either claim or both, and do you think either one might be an accurate description of a state of affairs?

Would there be anything weird about that, if there were?

[chiknsld]

There is no life force.  It is, in fact, a chemical process.  Possibility is a description of what can happen.  Not a force.  This is the danger in sloppy use of terms.

Do you think that any of those claims are facts, or knowable…though?  Disregard that we disagree.  Do you think that there’s a way to assess either claim or both, and do you think either one might be an accurate description of a state of affairs?

Would there be anything weird about that, if there were?

I'm not sure we are using the terms sloppily here, especially if we are able to speak effectively about such claims. Maybe what you are alluding to is that any statement that is clearly explicated can have no ambiguity. That almost sounds like you are saying that absolute truths exist...or as you say, "facts".

I think that it is certainly possible (no pun intended) to know whether or not these claims are true. But I do not know if we as a civilization are capable of discovering such facts in the far future. It could be something that is too complicated for us to ever discover. I would suppose though that a very advanced species or intelligence of some sort would easily have access to this knowledge or information.

I think most of life is "weird", especially if you take God out of the equation.