Evolution of morality

[OnlyNatural]

I just meant the evolution of morality in a very broad sense, only as opposed to morality being inherent in the nature of God, who created us, as theists may argue. I guess I'd think of it as a sort of cultural evolution, along with the more complex emotions and social dynamics.

Animals have evolved with instincts that come with their species social structure. Just because we happen to have social instincts, and that we glorify them, does not mean they are "morals". Chimps treat their children good, and pretty much adhere to social structures that are necessary for a species with their type of brain to propagate successfully. One could say that is moral. Chimpanzees will also get a flair for meat and attack a group of lesser evolved monkeys, or even other groups of chimps to just outright kill them and eat them. Sometimes the chimps kill just for the sake of killing. Is that moral as well?

I wouldn't say that chimps are behaving morally or immorally, since I wouldn't think they have any concept of morality. We can't really judge by our human standards. I suppose, like RD says, you could call some of their behaviours a sort of 'proto-morality', as our ancestors may have had. The social instincts and social structure on their own, I wouldn't call that morality, but it lays the necessary groundwork for humans to eventually conceptualize about right and wrong in a social context.

Now if you mean by "evolved" then you mean Zeitgeist (spirit of the times), then I would agree with you to an extent, but I am not sure by what measuring stick you are using to determine that morals have evolved. Is our morals better than the morals of people 1000 years ago? Who gets to be the judge? Me or you? Is it okay for Stalin and Hitler to be the judge of what is moral and what is not?

Yes, zeitgeist would be another way to describe it, a sort of new collective consciousness that evolves through interactions with others and as a society. But you're right, many social, political and moral revolutions of the past may be considered, today, to be morally lacking. We seem to have learned from a lot of these past events, like the Holocaust, and swear 'never again, we're better than that now,' but obviously this isn't the case everywhere, genocides and horrific atrocities are happening all the time. I don't know who should be the judge either, there really is no objective standard of morality to compare it to.

Only natural. You posted the video code incorrectly ... all you have to do...

Thanks, didn't know I could do that, fixed it.

1. No one has demonstrated that morality actually exists as a thing instantiated in the universe. As RJ has described there are social norms which we consent to as humans, some of which are consistent across geographies some of the time. But I am not aware of any moral code that is followed across all of time and space by a particular species. Morality is a concept within the framework of ethics, which helps us to describe the way we feel in certain situations. Much as numbers are concepts in the framework of maths which help us calculate; outside their frameworks morality/numbers are abstract concepts which do not exist.

I agree.

2. Evolution. It depends what you mean. In its purest sense yes. But when used in this context implies progression. For me it is only "moral" change that we have gone through, which has been forced upon us by urban dwelling, civilisation, healthcare and in the west and now the east wealth. Remove some of those and we will undergo change over time which will perhaps be viewed as regressive, but will infact be just change

I meant in a very broad sense. I agree with you here too, evolution doesn't have a progressive goal, it's only change over time and adaptation to circumstance, which obviously differs from place to place.

Seems Like Captain scarlet is over near the "absurdist/nihilist" side of the philosophical fence where I am. Im Absurdist and find things that arent strictly mechanical materialistic to be subject to humans forcing their own intent and emotions onto something that ISNT human emotions and intent. By what measuring stick do we use to judge religions, governments, societies, and every other human invented ideology? Its all absurd if you ask me. Why cant I just say that I will live and let live if you do the same without having to tag some kind of "meta-ethics" or "philosophie" title to justify it? When does this all break down into some shit that people just made up to make themselves feel better in the presence of a cold, inhuman Cosmos?

I'm seeing things this way a lot more these days. Maybe I'm not completely nihilistic, but I have no belief in any greater purpose or destiny, I know we're just animals with complex brains and we invent a lot of ridiculous stuff. But it's interesting to look into these ideologies nonetheless, and how we've learned to judge others and ourselves the way we do. And 'live and let live' is a good philosophy, I agree with you there.