Meaning of Right and Wrong... Finally Answered!

[pacian]

---

No it isn't "dude". Random mutations are a part of Evolution but without natural selection there would be no pressure for only the best suited mutations to survive.

Everything you said is no different to what I think, I think your arguing here cause you think I disagree but your basically stated the same as what I think. Maybe I didn't explain myself well enough but your arguing for no reason on this issue.

Every thing happened out of randomness, molecules meshing together in a watery soup.

Now you've convinced me you have an ultra basic understanding of evolution.

Read and learn: http://talkorigins.org/

No again you are misunderstanding me. Simple cells, prokaryotes, were formed though the randomness of millions of millions of molecular interations in a watery soup of molecules. These prokaryotes sometimes would combine and become more complex, turning into eukaryotes, (en example would be mitochondria in our cells.) As time went buy all these molecules meshing together formed more complex beings, leading to us...Humans. If you don't believe we are the product of this randomness then you believe an external force intelligently put these molecules together... intelligent design... sorry I won't be going into that immense issue, there is a reason why I posted this thread an in atheist forum. To save me the headache of trying to convince you there is no god.

Let say i make robots with the ability to reproduce...

Where'd ya get the robots? I guess they just randomly happen when you've got enough silicon and metal right?

The same way prokaryotes appeared, what you think god created them?

but also vary, much like our dna does with bacteria and every other living creature. Okay out of randomness some of these robots will kill their offspring, some will do nothing with their offspring, and others will provide for their offspring out of sheer randomness.

So randomness alone kills the unfit generations? Due to what? Some part of the robot stops and says "woah i'm too random, better die now"?

No natural selection does, again I fell maybe what I said went over your head.

Who is going to survive better? Evolution will make more of the robots that don't kill their offspring and probably even more of the robots that don't kill their offspring and provide for their offspring.

I suggest you go look at some basics of natural selection, your analogy doesn't seem to get it at all.

No, I get it completely. I think maybe I need to elaborate more natural selection is more then the the selection of good physical traits, they also involve how we think and feel towards things. Maybe that's a new concept for you but put some thought into it and you can find more then one example of how this is true.

Randomness, all they are is randomness, they can still survive, reproduce, but they might not have all the awesome traits that would make them super awesome. Its hard getting all the right traits!

Correct. You steal crap someone doesn't want, its not morally wrong. Lets say a person throws away stuff in a garbage can, the person himself throws it away because the object does not have value or significantly enough value to him. If a homeless man comes and steals it from his trash, does it matter? As long as the homeless guy ain't stealing credit card numbers, the survivability of the first guy goes unchanged.

What if i steal something you really want but it doesn't help you survive, like your favorite picture of your long dead mother, it certainly has no impact on your ability to survive. Is that morally wrong? Of course it is, because survival is a tiny portion of what contributes to morality.

Really if you steal my favorite picture your not pissing me off and breaking bonds with me. I'm not more likely to kick your ass, or maybe even kill you, decreasing your survivability as oppose to say, if you did not steal my favorite picture... yeah I thought so.

My theory fits buddy ?

No it doesn't, you basically have a typical high-school understanding of how natural selection works and moral criteria than cannot account for the vast majority of moral questions.

Sorry, you are wrong, I actually have a pre-school education, in fact I can't even read or write, as you can see by my horrendous grammar and spelling, also i am completely retarded... insult my intelligence all you want, my theory still stands strong.

It is considered wrong to be lazy and not become educated, yes, personally I don't give a shit, but thats what we humans in general consider and what nature points morality too. Come on your parents never put a guilt trip on you, to go to school, get good grades, as oppose to ditch school, smoke weed...lol

I never said they were lazy, i said they didn't get an education and probably didn't want one. For all you know this is someone who works very hard and is a good person generally. Based on your criteria of maximizing survivability being the base of morality, these people don't at all achieve that. If they don't achieve maximal survivability for the species then under your framework they have done something morally wrong.

It as seen as morally wrong by the perception of society to be lazy, and not maximize your potential. Of course there's millions if not billions of people who don't do this, but society encourages people to go to school, get good grades, be a productive member of society. Those are survival values, and again morality again points to survival.

I went to school, got good grades AND smoked weed. Was i partially immoral for the latter? It seems that in your framework anything at all that doesn't potentially maximize survival is morally wrong, and anything that doesn't hinder survival can't be immoral.

Does society percieve smoking weed as immoral? Yes! There's a stupid law agianst it. Society see's weed as an unhealthy recreation, again morality being shaped by survival values.

I respectfully disagree with you. moral right and wrong seem to have completely arisen from evolution, randomness.

Based on what? A concept of a standard by which we judge action is not something that can arise biologically

Umm, yes it is as I've been proving this whole thread.

It is a mental concept. We have a biological sense of right and wrong, is that what you mean? Simply having a sense of right and wrong does not mean you have a concept of morality.

Yeah that is what i mean. And yes your are right as well on your second sentence.

Though I find you equating desire with morality, I would have to disagree. My desire to rape you is equal to your desire not to get rape... so i'm morally right? Though your theory makes since in that situation you would have to elaborate on all situations

Not the case at all. We both have the desire not to be raped, it's impossible to desire an act that is non-consensual. Because we both have absolute desires not to be raped, where only you have the desire to rape (which cannot be as strong as an absolute desire because it's not necessarily true) there are more and stronger desires not to be raped. Therefore it is immoral to rape under all circumstances.

I have the desire not to get raped... how do you know what if I'm a freak! I knew a girl who fantasized about it. Sorry your wrong buddy. My theory works. Yours, I already squashed.

Hypothetically lets say my desire to kill you is equal to your desire not to die, so there is nothing wrong with killing you? You would have to elaborate cause I would have to disagree if its based on desire. We all have different desires.

Desiring to murder is not as strong as a desire not to be murdered. Because we both (necessarily) have the desire not to be murdered (because murder is without consent) and because the desire not to be murdered is absolute there are more and stronger desires not to be murdered than there are to be murdered. Therefore murder is an act that thwarts more and stronger desires than it promotes, and therefore Murder is immoral.

If you had only 100 people in existence, and 99 of them liked murder, then murder would still be wrong because 100% of the population desires not to be murdered (necessarily, because murder is non consensual).

There are not only more desires not to be murdered than there are to murder, but the desires not to be murdered are absolute (you cannot desire to be murdered). Again, therefore murder is morally wrong.

Sorry dude, your theory works here, but what about incest? If both parties desire it, then your saying its right but society as a whole sees it morally wrong. Your theory is bunk.

Lol it is still considered immoral to steal, even if he is fat lol. Due to stealing in general is stealing something that increases survivability or can be sold in increase survivability.

Right, it's wrong to steal regardless of whether or not it helps survival. Therefore survival is an insufficient criteria for establishing moral propositions.

No the perception of society is that it is almost always wrong, but like a said it could be right based on survivability.

Your right he probably don't need that pie and his survivability might increase if he lays off all that pie, but due to the negative connotation involved with it such as assault, injury, and death that occur when stealing from people. It as seen as something that decreases survivability in general, I mean your still going to jail for stealing, even if he's fat. And don't need it.

His survivability will increase. If survivability is the deciding factor in morality then the fact that he better survives makes it morally permissible. Of course you don't think that's true, by now you should see the problem in attributing everything to survival.

And yes, stealing probably does decrease survivability generally, but then you would have to categorically declare theft wrong, even if one is starving to death. Another problem for your moral theory.

I'm not arguing that theft is wrong even if one is straving, I'm arguing the perception of societies morality is based on survivability. And if survivability is what morality is based on then yes a person not dying because he stole food and survived is not immoral as long as the over all survival value of the species increased.

Also, what if i was on drugs before going to prison and during my time in prison i got clean and started working out, in that case not only did my theft from the fat man aid in his survival, it also increased my survival.

Yeah and wouldn't becoming a good little citizen be seen as a good thing by society. Exactly, societies perception of morality is based on that. Your survival value increased and now society says, oh what a good boy.

My theory is awesome, I hope you will be able to understand it one day in all its glory.

It has MASSIVE flaws, to the point where you have to address each contention by intuition. And since intuition is subjective then there is no real standard by which actions can be judged right and wrong.

And you're super naive to suppose that 1) you are the first to propose that morality is grounded in survival, 2) That survivability is comprehensive enough to cover all moral contentions and 3) That using survival we can establish true moral propositions.

Sorry dude you are completely wrong, my theory is like saying that water is the bases of all life, because everywhere there is water there is life. My theory is saying that morality is shaped by survival values, because every time I look at a moral issue, survival values are there to be found.

You know now that i think about it, morality is just another feeling of evolution to help us adapt, like depression, its just a series of chemical reactions in our brains, Its as real as any other feeling, happyness, love, sadness, anger all these feelings made to help us interact motivate us and do stuff to help us prosper in the world

Morality is not a feeling, it is a standard by which we judge right and wrong. What you have just proposed seems to be a form of Error Theory (all moral statements are false because morality does not exist). I agree completely that this type of thing can evolve in biological systems, but this isn't morality, it is intuitive right and wrong. If we want a standard by which we can establish moral facts then we need something else. I think Desirism can establish these moral facts.

No, i'm right it is a feeling, you've never felt bad after accidently running over an animal. How about when you see starving africans on television. You might not feel bad or good for all moral issues but people have them, and they shape morality.

But the island you stand on is burning, you must see why the water is the most logical path, or not. I know my theory is good. Thanks for posting, I appreciate your input very much.

Your moral theory is inadequate, you either resort to nihilism or you have to intuitively decide which cases do and do not fit your standard of 'survivability' manually.

---

I said this earlier, but I think it should be said again...My theory is like saying that water is the bases of all life, because everywhere there is water there is life. My theory is saying that morality is shaped by survival values, because every time I look at a moral issue, survival values are there to be found.

---

Interesting post and perspective. I will have to ponder what you have said.

Thank you for your input, I see your a writer, maybe we could collaborate on a book or something haha.

It's you're not your, so maybe not too much of a writer, are you?

Lol krazedkat! You are correct. I'm embarrassed now

Oh and by the way people, if you want me to reply to a post don't order me around, or at the very least, say please. Thanks.