RE: Evolution of morality
March 10, 2011 at 7:49 pm
(This post was last modified: March 10, 2011 at 7:55 pm by lilphil1989.)
I think we have a semantic issue here. You seem to be using the words "model" and "test" in a different way to me (perhaps due to my background in physical science).
Let's try to make things nice and clear from the start.
What exactly do you mean by a moral model?
Do you believe that there is a code of morality that exists independently of human beings?
If that's the case, then the underlying "true" morality is NOT independent of those moral codes converging towards it, since their point of convergence would DEFINE the "true" morality.
Let's try to make things nice and clear from the start.
What exactly do you mean by a moral model?
Do you believe that there is a code of morality that exists independently of human beings?
(March 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm)Ashendant Wrote:(March 10, 2011 at 6:10 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote: This implies that morality exists independently of human beings or any other species with a moral code.Convergent evolution?
You are then left with the unenviable task of explaining its origin.
If that's the case, then the underlying "true" morality is NOT independent of those moral codes converging towards it, since their point of convergence would DEFINE the "true" morality.
Galileo was a man of science oppressed by the irrational and superstitious. Today, he is used by the irrational and superstitious who claim they are being oppressed by science - Mark Crislip
