We should take the Moral Highground

[DeistPaladin]

If I can kill all my male competitors and impregnate all the females in the tribe so my genetic offspring dominate....then it's good to be the king.

...and then your tribe dies out within a few generations from inbreeding.

But if I'm a puny twerp its good to be a rapist.

...until you get caught and punished.

---

By the way, I notice you completely ignored and dodged all my points. Does this mean you concede?

[Bgood]

What about true feelings of sympathy and compassion that naturally arise in applicable situations? Mercy, forgiveness and love are all "morally good" thoughts that may even go against our instincts. Ethical teachings that support and encourage these "morals" are important to keep in the collective consciousness for individual gain as well as group benefit. Unfortunately, ethics are generally only associated with religion which is unnecessary and many times divisive and oppressive. Secular ethical teaching would do no harm though I believe. It may do some good in today's world.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If I can kill all my male competitors and impregnate all the females in the tribe so my genetic offspring dominate....then it's good to be the king.

...and then your tribe dies out within a few generations from inbreeding.

You missed the point. Evolution does not select tribes or communities. It only relates to genetic propagation. E. O. Wilson's theories of social evolution were proposed to account for apparently altruistic behaviors, i.e. insuring the survival of your genetic pattern via kin. As such the survival of your brother and two cousins would equal your own survival. In my rapist example, if the rapist gets caught it still doesn't matter. The genes have been passed to the offspring. It's no different than when a female spider eats the male after copulation.

[DeistPaladin]

...and this is post #3 where I call you out for ignoring all my points and hitting the reset button in our exchange. Are you actually interested in a rational and honest discussion at all?

If you fail to respond to this post I'm going to assume you are tacitly admitting you can't answer my points and I will declare victory.

As for your non-sequitur about rape, I'm not sure how it helps your case that religious based morality is superior to secular based morality. Even if rape offers an evolutionary advantage, and I'm not so sure it does since rapists may caught, killed or punished before they might be able to reproduce, I have to ask how you get from that to "...and therefore religious morals are superior to secular morals" (especially when your own Bible hardly condemns the practice of rape). My only point on evolution is to discuss how we developed our sense of compassion and community.

---

BTW, this is the post I'm demanding that you answer.

Stop evading please.

[Neo-Scholastic]

By the way, I notice you completely ignored and dodged all my points. Does this mean you concede?

You have no foundation on which to build a high moral ground. Your argument is is not logically sound, because you are saying that evolutionary based empathy is a valid basis for morality. Consider the following:

1) Evolution is an amoral process.
2) Empathy is a by-product of evolution.
Thus:
3) Empathy is amoral.

To avoid conclusion 3, either premise 1 or 2 must be false. If premise 1 is false, then evolutionary results are moral, i.e. 'might makes right.' If premise 2 is false, then empathy comes from outside natural selection. If it exists at all, morality exists despite evolution, not because of it. To secure the 'high moral ground' you cannot appeal to some vague "moral sense" that itself has no inherently moral basis.

[DeistPaladin]

By the way, I notice you completely ignored and dodged all my points. Does this mean you concede?

You have no foundation on which to build a high moral ground. Your argument is is not logically sound, because you are saying that evolutionary based empathy is a valid basis for morality. Consider the following:

1) Evolution is an amoral process.
2) Empathy is a by-product of evolution.
Thus:
3) Empathy is amoral.

To avoid conclusion 3, either premise 1 or 2 must be false. If premise 1 is false, then evolutionary results are moral, i.e. 'might makes right.' If premise 2 is false, then empathy comes from outside natural selection. If it exists at all, morality exists despite evolution, not because of it. To secure the 'high moral ground' you cannot appeal to some vague "moral sense" that itself has no inherently moral basis.

The transition from 2 to 3 is highly spurious. How exactly does being a by-product of an amoral process make the produced thing necessarily amoral? It seems to me you've made an invalid assumption.

Additionally, how empathy came to be is a red herring to our discussion. I've specifically said in previous posts that you are free to believe God gave us our conscience if you wish. Doing so does nothing to validate your idea that religious morality is superior.

The crux of my argument is that religious "morality" has an inherent conflict of interest (promoting itself and its own memes) where secular morality zeroes in on the the heart of the matter, that morality is a function of how we treat our fellow sentient beings. Can you successfully attack this argument?

[genkaus]

You have no foundation on which to build a high moral ground. Your argument is is not logically sound, because you are saying that evolutionary based empathy is a valid basis for morality. Consider the following:

1) Evolution is an amoral process.
2) Empathy is a by-product of evolution.
Thus:
3) Empathy is amoral.

To avoid conclusion 3, either premise 1 or 2 must be false. If premise 1 is false, then evolutionary results are moral, i.e. 'might makes right.' If premise 2 is false, then empathy comes from outside natural selection. If it exists at all, morality exists despite evolution, not because of it. To secure the 'high moral ground' you cannot appeal to some vague "moral sense" that itself has no inherently moral basis.

Actually, 3 is an invalid conclusion. Empathy may be a by-product of evolution - that does not mean it inherits all of evolution's characteristics.

[DeistPaladin]

Actually, 3 is an invalid conclusion. Empathy may be a by-product of evolution - that does not mean it inherits all of evolution's characteristics.

On reflection, I think Chad's specific logic fallacy employed here is Poisoning the Well.

1. Unfavorable information about person X is presented, whether or not true.
2. Person X advocates A, B and C.
3. A, B, and C must not be true since person X is such a jerk.

Using another example:
1. Newton believed in crazy things like alchemy.
2. Newton gave us the theory of gravity
3. The theory of gravity must be a crazy idea like alchemy

And Chad's argument was:

1. Evolution is an amoral process
2. Evolution produced empathy.
3. Therefore empathy must be bad because something amoral produced it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Actually, 3 is an invalid conclusion. Empathy may be a by-product of evolution - that does not mean it inherits all of evolution's characteristics.

Then the question becomes this. From where does the 'moral sense' get its character? What allows DP to say that things like empathy and fair play are right? DP wants to say that we should follow the dictates of our inner sense of right and wrong. Why? DP says there's a survival benefit.

My point is that the survival benefit is at the genetic level, not the individual. Animals are really just gene delivery devices. Once the genetic information has been passed along, evolution doesn't care if you die. If lying, cheating, stealing, and yes raping, work as a strategy for leaving a genetic legacy then an evolution-based morality is really no morality at all.

[DeistPaladin]

What allows DP to say that things like empathy and fair play are right? DP wants to say that we should follow the dictates of our inner sense of right and wrong. Why? DP says there's a survival benefit.

The flaw in your logic here is the use of the strawman fallacy.

There is a difference between the following two statements:

Statement 1: "Empathy is the result of our evolutionary development as social animals" (what I said)
Statement 2: "We should use empathy because it is evolutionarily sound." (not what I said)

The first is a possible explanation that I proposed as to why we have empathy, though I also allow for the possibility of GodDidIt. It's entirely beside the point of our discussion. The second is your strawman of me.

By the way, request #5: Any time you want to address this post on why religious morality fails, please do!