(May 21, 2018 at 5:23 pm)Mathilda Wrote:(May 21, 2018 at 12:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If morality comes from evolution, why is morality only a human concept?
We don't know that it is.
(May 21, 2018 at 1:23 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Animals do not do not have any concept of right/wrong or good/evil or any system of justice (punishment for immoral behavior) for that matter, if you say they do then provide your source.
Ok, so now you show that your ignorance is willful...
You used Frans De Waal as a source on the same subject, and I thoroughly debunked the notion that he claimed animals we're moral beings in this post:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-53848-p...pid1717332
From an article written by de Waal
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/201...thout-god/
Quote:At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice. We strive for a logically coherent system, and have debates about how the death penalty fits arguments for the sanctity of life, or whether an unchosen sexual orientation can be wrong. These debates are uniquely human. We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment.From an article written about de Waal
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/0...use-of-god
Quote:Further, de Waal doesn't go so far as to equate animal goodness with morality. "I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a 'moral being'," he writes. "There is little evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not directly affect themselves."
What sets human morality apart, he believes, depends on our greater powers of abstraction, and involves "a move toward universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring, and punishment. At this point, religion comes in."
A scientist and non-believer, de Waal isn't saying here that religion is required for human morality, only that the two have been entwined throughout human history. Since I have wearied of the Richard Dawkins school of religion-bashing, in which belief is equated with dim-wittedness, I can only applaud de Waal's approach, as when he writes, "The enemy of science is not religion. Religion comes in endless shapes and forms ... . The true enemy is the substitution of thought, reflection, and curiosity with dogma."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal
Quote:His 2013 book The Bonobo and the Atheist examines human behavior through the eyes of a primatologist, and explores to what extent God and religion are needed for human morality. The main conclusion is that morality comes from within, and is part of human nature. The role of religion is secondary.