Why be good?

[Angrboda]

Most but not all? In the course of evolution, we have evolved with very specific physical features such as two arms, two legs, five senses, and we walk upright, etc. Now, there are some people who are born without all of these things, but the overwhelming majority are. However, I'm not so sure that the number of people born with the same sense of selflessness matches the percentage of those born with our highly evolved physical traits, are you? In fact, don't parents have to spend an awful lot of time TEACHING their otherwise tyrannical toddlers to share their toys and not throw food on the floor when they are mad, etc? And if morality is learned, then is it merely a societal convention rather than a product of evolution (as has been claimed by NUMEROUS respondents in this thread)?

It's not exclusively one or the other. It is a product of both nature and nurture. Does a baby not smile when her mother smiles. Cry until she is fed. The social impulses are already there, waiting to be shaped by a close bond with another.

[Esquilax]

Although the majority seem to hold to some combination of points 1, 2 & 3, I'm not convinced that any of these reasons adequately answer the question of "Why Be Good" - especially in light of the core element of evolution that the strong dominate the weak, etc.

So, are you going to continue with this overly simplistic strawman, even after I've corrected you on it? I mean, if you want to lie to continue this argument that's fine, but I'd kinda like to hear you say it: "I'd prefer to argue against a position that nobody holds, but is convenient for the conclusion I came to before I even asked my first question and refuse to give up, rather than honestly engaging with a factual representation of evolution and the views of the people speaking to me."

Clearly, even today, some people do NOT care about others...they do or take what they want with little to no regard for the consequences. Evolution has not eliminated this from these individuals or groups.

Evolution can't "eliminate" anything from individuals, given that it happens over generations; the only way it could eliminate from an individual is before they were born, in which case you'd have nothing to complain about, wouldn't you? Besides, selection pressures don't work the way you seem to think they do; selfishness is an obstacle to existing in human society- obviously, given that the vast majority of people aren't as you describe- but since it isn't completely fatal, it obviously can still linger. Please, do go actually study the mechanisms of evolution before you speak about it, in future.

Also, I need to point out that you're pointing to outliers and then extrapolating out from there to the whole of the group, which is entirely fallacious. It's about as fair as me pointing to Josh Duggar and concluding that therefore christianity is full of child molesters. Every group has outliers and exceptions, but with evolution we at least know why that is, and why it doesn't affect the core. It'd be best if you stopped arguing from a position of ignorance, frankly.

[LastPoet]

Quick post before I head to work...more later.
(...)
It seems to me that these are examples of Darwinism at work...and evidence that evolution's demand that only the strong survive is still in full effect.

(bold mine)
I am really sorry, but I have read enough. You sir are either intellectualy dishonest or just plain stupid. Perhaps you are just keeping this thread alive. You, sir, are not interested in learning, just to spread whatever bullshit you find profitable.

I would advise you to get a proper education.

[pocaracas]

Why did I type my response on the previous page?

It is becoming obvious that this guy can only read 2 line replies... more than that and he just can't because he's in a hurry to go to work. -.-'

Fine, be that way.

[Alex K]

Indeed, get an education.

Well, what do we expect. He's got William Lane Craig in the signature.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I'm tired of this.

Clearly, any response except "goddidit" is going to be dismissed via strawman. It's a waste of time.

Please learn about evolution before you try and use it in debates. As has been pointed out many, many times, "Survival of the fittest" does not mean what you think it means.

[Jenny A]

You're missing the point.  Unless he acts or tells you, you would never just know.  So?  Do you want to know?  How the condemnation.

What part of "hypothetical" don't you understand? Jesus would know what in the heart without being told right? Pretend you had the same ability. You claim that to "Condemn a man in advance of his actions and you behave immorally yourself", Yet that's exactly what you do when you say you wouldn't trust this person around kids because of his thoughts.

There is no one who can know the mind of a person just by looking at them. I assess morality based upon the here and now and what is and isn't possible. I do not accept your hypothetical because it is impossible.

But suppose it was possible. The outcome is the same. One should help such a man avoid acting on his desires, moral disapproval or punishment simply because he has them is in itself immoral. The question is not what he thinks but how he behaves. Exposing himself to temptation is a behavior.

And is it a sin to have small pox?

Seriously? no.
Were speaking in a medical context, sin is used in a spiritual context. A building can be "condemned", doesn't mean it's "sinful".

Yes, I'm quite serious. The analogy is exact.  Looking at children with sexual desire is a disease.  Both pedophilia and small pox are diseases likely to endanger children.  In both cases we protect the children, and we expect the diseased man, if he is a good man, to aid us in that.  In neither case do I consider the person bad or immoral until they have acted in a bad or immoral way.  In both cases, willingly spending time with children would be an immoral act.

[Alex K]

"Survival of the fittest" does not mean what you think it means.

I mean  - Snails do exist. That should give him pause

[Thumpalumpacus]

But this is where the problems begin for atheists. Science informs us of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, which entails the "survival of the fittest" principle of natural selection in which the strong dominate and kill off the weak, etc. This principle can be readily observed in the animal kingdom, where stronger, faster, more aggressive alpha males get to mate with the females and produce offspring. Weaker, less dominant males do not.

A significant incoherence in atheist thought becomes clear when atheists insist, on the one hand, that the natural order is governed by the blind, random forces of nature, resulting in the "survival of the fittest" evolution of species and yet, on the other hand, they complain about the problem of evil, or decry violent acts of Muslim terrorists, or excoriate those who engage in "immoral" behavior – most especially among Christians.

But if, as atheists claim, God does not exist and all of us are simply the byproducts of natural selection’s "survival of the fittest," why shouldn’t the strong among us dominate and kill off the weak? Why shouldn’t we adopt an "every man for himself" attitude and get what we want from whomever we want it by whatever means we can get it?

A prolonged sidetrack into the is/ought fallacy.

By the way, Randy, why are you avoiding my questions?

eta: I see that he has, finally. strike this question.

---

Thank you, Ben.

That's a very clear, straightforward answer. Now, given the fact that we've spent what? 3 million years or so evolving as a species under the "survival of the fittest" paradigm, when did this shift to the "let's work together for the common good" approach that you're suggesting actually occur?

I'm not convinced this is the reason for "good" behavior, but I'm interested your opinion.

The term is "survival of the fittest", not "survival of the cruelest."

You've had the distinction pointed out to you several times. It seems fair to assume that you are willfully avoiding this point.

[dyresand]

Indeed, get an education.

Well, what do we expect. He's got William Lane Craig in the signature.

WLC has been dismissed and debunked many times why do people never learn and keep listening to him just boggles my mind. 
The only reason why WLC has even stayed relevant as a person is he is a good debater. Though he has met his matches though