what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[max-greece]

Were we not social mammals the selfish attitude would be the more beneficial, however, being social animals its simply not how things are.

Then why do some humans kill, rape, and steal if they did not evolve to do so?

I've answered this question a couple of times now. In a way, you just have too. Some humans kill, rape and steal. This is exceptional behaviour and therefore not the norm. How many killings, rapes and robberies have you committed? I'm batting zero on that score - I'd expect you are the same.

The norm is cooperation and compromise.

We know this through the history of our species. There are many examples of activities that would never have happened were my version of human morality not correct. Farming is an example. Can you understand why?

I do not see how this would require your version of morality to be correct. In Genesis man is compelled to work the fields for food. Additionally, I think the history of our species has taught us that many humans get very far in life by doing things that I am sure you and I would both agree are immoral.

Genesis? I have to ask at this point - are you actually a YEC? If you are then this conversation just became a bit pointless, however:

Farming started about 10,000 years ago. It requires considerable investment of time and energy and is done in the expectation that the farmer(s) will reap the rewards.

If your version of humanity were correct they would not have that expectation. They would be murdered and robbed as soon as their crop was ready by bigger stronger individuals. Even if they were foolish enough to have the expectation, wrongly, they would have been murdered and robbed to their surprise. Farming would have died out. To farm would be akin to a death sentence. It didn't. It wasn't. History began.

Humans do engage in all the activities they are capable of. Some are moral, some are not. Implementation of the tools that support morality through natural selection is merely good enough to maintain the species. If it isn't, the species doesn't survive. No society condones murder or theft from individuals or groups it recognises as being part of that society. If it did, that society would be very short lived indeed.

If species cannot survive by murdering and raping one another then how come many species-including humans-murder and rape one another and seem to survive just fine? Moreover, if these actions are only immoral when done within a society are they then moral when done to other societies?

Intra-species murder is VERY rare amongst other species. Rape is also very rare but not as rare. The cooperative instincts apply to the group but when 2 groups come into contact there are 2 choices. Cooperate or war. Of the 2 cooperate appears to work better. In modern parlance cooperation is trade.

Religion (and politics) act to identify non-group members within the society enabling people to murder, rape and steal from them with impunity, often with the blessing of their God.

Using your definition of morality what you seem to be complaining about would have to actually be classified as morally good. Since the vast majority of societies are religious then this must serve a particular survival advantage for those societies and therefore according to your definition would be a morally good belief and institution. Being non-religious would then be the outlier and therefore an immoral position.

This is where, if you are a YEC, we have a problem with further discussion. Religion is a fairly recent phenomenon. Humanity (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) got by without it for about 70,000 years.

This is not to say religion may not carry an evolutionary benefit - strengthening group identity, for example. But as with many evolutionary developments there are good and bad things associated with it. One of these is the strengthening of division between groups.

There are many examples of evolutionary change bringing costs. There are also examples of temporary benefit that ultimately become dis-advantageous. I would argue religion is in this category.

You didn't understand what I was saying. Our natural behaviours are empathy, reciprocation and fairness. Those are the ones we can overcome to "do evil."

I do not believe that those are our natural predispositions at all. Humans kill one another daily, they steal from one another daily, they rape one another daily. I do not see how you are choosing which of these behaviors are normal and which ones are not when people do them all.

I cannot help what you believe. As I have already stated murder, theft and so on are the minority positions.

No other animal makes war on itself.

I believe ants wage war. Chimps will fight and steal from other groups of chimps. Most apes will commit rape. Lions commit infanticide. All animals kill. How can you possibly reason from the premise that whatever animals do is morally good?

My bad - no other species wages war on itself. One species of ant may attack another but not, as far as I know, one of the same species.

Lions commit infanticide - true. But this is not a moral issue. I never claimed lions were moral. They work on instinct. Lions only commit infanticide under certain circumstances - when the old male leader of the pride has been replaced by a new one. The new one then kills the remaining off-spring of the old lion and the females respond by immediately coming into season. That way the new lion maximizes his chance of continuing his genetic line. As long as the new alpha male lion is in place no further infanticide will occur.

Survival of the species is the driver for any and all species on the planet. We are no different. God has nothing to do with it. God is about establishing power and allegiance between humans for the lowest cost.

Are you saying that any action that helps to perpetuate the species is morally good?

I am saying the function of morality, or probably the founding principles of morality (empathy, reciprocation and fairness) are there to maximize the chances of species survival. I doubt you could expand that to "any action" without coming upon exceptions.

No - it was morally abhorrent. You are correct, however, that religion is not the only way to get people to behave appallingly. Political ideology is a good substitute. In the case you mentioned it was communism but it could equally have been fascism.

Now wait a second, what if those acts did aid the survival of the Russian people? Would they then be morally good acts?

How would you even go about proving that? I'd work on the basis that Stalin killing some 40 million of the Russian people makes the question redundant.

Within the society, yes, you would be considered morally wrong. Were you in a different place at the same time or in another time you would be considered morally correct. Its easy to see which of these 2 positions is correct - just compare to our inherited characteristics.

I am having trouble pinning you down on this. What ultimately determines whether any particular act is good or bad? The society you live in? Whether it helps the species as a whole? Whether other animals also do the act? I am having difficulty figuring out what exactly your position is.

The basic standard is empathy, reciprocation and fairness. How actions compare to those determines whether an act is good or bad. Will there be grey areas? Obviously - its one of the reasons morality varies so much from one culture to another.

We determine good or bad morality by our inherited standard. Its not hard to do.

Inherited standard? You mean by what we “feel” is good or bad?

No - empathy, reciprocation and fairness.

Interesting how useless God's consideration is, to us. What Stalin cared about is not the species concern. Ideally the species is concerned with is learning from the lessons of Stalin, or Hitler, Pol Pot and so on so we don't let those things happen again. Sadly we don't seem to be too good at learning. Maybe that will be the thing that actually kills off our species.

Why should Stalin have cared about the species? He got absolutely everything he wanted in life, why should he sacrifice his well-being so that humans who are born after he’s feeding the worms may benefit? This does not seem to make any sense. Now if there is a God who owns Stalin, hates sins, and possesses the ultimate prerogative to judge him for his sins after his material body has died then it would make sense.

[/quote]

Stalin was a malfunctioning individual by the standard measures (empathy, reciprocation and fairness.) The lesson to learn is how to stop individuals like him coming to power.

Your justification for God makes him even more useless than I would. How does it benefit anyone that Stalin is punished in the afterlife? Why did God let Stalin be borne in the first place. Was Stalin's free will (I am pre-supposing your argument here) worth the lives of 40 million Russians? Your God's morality appears wanting.