Evolution cannot account for morality

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s true that we’ve evolved very little since the time of khan. We’ve been fully modern for 50k years, at least. It’s not true that morality can’t be studied and the same standard used between people of different times. That’s been done, and the results…so far as they can be inferred from historic sources and dig sites, are remarkably similar to the results you’ll get today….which is itself a study of different people who can and do believe different things just in our own time.

Morality as expressed changes with a great many things. There’s cultural relativity and individual subjectivity, ofc, but there’s also change in objective circumstance. Point being, changes to the contents of our normative statements would be expected under any idea of what morality is. Regardless of whether biological evolution occurred.

It just so happens to be the case that it did, and since it did, and since that’s lead to changes in state and circumstance, any objective view of harm, for example, would change by necessity. If an animal evolves an intelligence like ours and then proceeds to discover the world around them with that swanky new ability any objective view of -anything- would change…..again necessarily.

If you look at human history, and prehistory, with an eye for moral systems rather than individual moral dictates, you might notice that this is exactly what happened. In sum, the idea that evolution…biological or cultural, doesn’t account for the existence of moral systems…in an ultra social species…no less…just doesn’t hold water. OFC it can, and does.

That’s not likely to be the item of disagreement, though. That’s more like does the mere existence of a moral dictate as a product of evolution certify that it’s contents are accurate, in fact. That one, is a hard no. There are alot of things that advantage our communities, our breeding populations…that are Not Great Bob.

There, ofc, I’m speaking from a realists perspective. There are certainly people willing to say that whatever is natural is right….and owing to the indelible stamp of our lowly origin that idea probably wouldn’t cause any huge disruptions. It’s fashionable to be a misanthrope, but we’re a remarkably goofy and peaceful animal given our size, needs, and potential for harm. The fashionability of misanthropy itself a demonstration of our capacity for self scrutiny.

This. Imo, is why and how so many of the so called axial religions failed as moral systems. They were an attempt to fix broken man- but man is not actually broken, then or now. A description of how to solve problems which do not exist…and…very often, by means that wouldn’t fix that problem if it did exist. This is also why those moral systems are on perpetual guard against paganism by any name…as those systems are very often aligned at fixing environments rather than people, and the urge to employ them is never more than a fully natural urge away.

I think this accounts for a huge portion of moral skepticism today, but not rightly so. That many people have gotten something wrong doesn’t certify that no one can get them right or that there is no accurate answer. Similarly, that nature and mere existence does not certify a moral statement does not imply that nature and existence are uninformative.

Does it make sense that we have instincts?? In a word, yes. Would it make sense if our every instinct were aligned to a moral goal (assuming the latter as fact). No. Does a god have anything to do with any of this…assuming it exists? No.

Where does evolution come from? Organic chemistry. I’m sure that we can all agree that chemistry is….powerful.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. Morality is a human construct through its strongly founded on pro-social instincts and traits and yes intelligence is an evolutionary trait. But the way you were phrasing it in your original comment you made it sound as though evolution was some form of prescriptive doctrine. Which it is not.

2. Abiogenesis is a separate process from evolution so yes it makes perfect sense.

3. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the universe or life and complexity is simply the gradual development of life from simpler forms. Evolution is some form of god it's simply population mechanics, And cells don't have instructions it's merely chemistry and it's complex because it's had billions of years to develop and countless failed attempts.

What makes more sense?

a) Matter undergoes complexity under the power of evolution leading up to life and then life undergoes mutation. 

or

b) Matter undergoes complexity randomly, then turns to life randomly, then life undergoes mutation because of evolution. 

Try thinking about it  Which one makes more sense?

This is a false dilemma matter didn't become complex randomly or by evolution. Chemistry and Bio-Chemistry predate the process of evolution and through Abiogenesis we get  life. Then that life diversifies via evolution.

[brewer]

No, empathy was the result of humans living in groups to sustain life, human psych evolution. The animals that display this behavior also live in groups.

Your problem seems to be that you believe 'evolution' is only genetic.

Ah, I see, the whole nurture part of life. Yes I think you are right I look at all behavior as pretty much a direct result of genetics. I also find it hard to believe that any infinite amount of "group socializing" can somehow be passed on to offspring. Even if you can pass on some characteristics such as temperament, I would see a big difference between that and empathy. Most psychopaths did not have psychopathic parents (they might have had certain genetic predispositions to psychopathy however). 

I guess if you raised Hitler in a different environment he could have been a normal person, but then again he could have had some psychological issues (something wrong with his brain). But I am pretty sure if Hitler had children that wouldn't mean that they would be evil as well. I do not think being "good" or "bad", or having empathy, is a trait that is passed on to children (like having green eyes).

What makes more sense is that empathy is already part of life itself and that as organisms become more intelligent, for some reason this results in a higher emanation of that morality which is already inherent to life. In other words, I see morality as a direct indication or corollary of intelligence (rather than something like IQ).

Do you think it's possible that there could exist a super advanced species that is several orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans, which do not care about morality? It feels as though life has a willingness towards morality, perhaps from its own understanding that there is value in survival. But you would have to wonder how such a subjective "value" could be derived from billions of years of matter existing.

Yeah, you still don't get it. Too much trying to shoe horn god into the discussion.

Bold: Did you just state that organisms evolve, or are you saying that god made them more evolved?

Life does not require morality, look at plants, bacteria, insects, reptiles,............... You don't seem to grasp the big picture. Social animals develop/make social morals. Of course there will be aberrant individuals, there are in all social groups. But I challenge you to prove that the aberrant individuals/groups are completely genetic and not environmental.

If you don't think so then tell me why there are/were head hunter tribes, human sacrifice tribes?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Ah, I see, the whole nurture part of life. Yes I think you are right I look at all behavior as pretty much a direct result of genetics. I also find it hard to believe that any infinite amount of "group socializing" can somehow be passed on to offspring. Even if you can pass on some characteristics such as temperament, I would see a big difference between that and empathy. Most psychopaths did not have psychopathic parents (they might have had certain genetic predispositions to psychopathy however). 

I guess if you raised Hitler in a different environment he could have been a normal person, but then again he could have had some psychological issues (something wrong with his brain). But I am pretty sure if Hitler had children that wouldn't mean that they would be evil as well. I do not think being "good" or "bad", or having empathy, is a trait that is passed on to children (like having green eyes).

What makes more sense is that empathy is already part of life itself and that as organisms become more intelligent, for some reason this results in a higher emanation of that morality which is already inherent to life. In other words, I see morality as a direct indication or corollary of intelligence (rather than something like IQ).

Do you think it's possible that there could exist a super advanced species that is several orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans, which do not care about morality? It feels as though life has a willingness towards morality, perhaps from its own understanding that there is value in survival. But you would have to wonder how such a subjective "value" could be derived from billions of years of matter existing.

Yeah, you still don't get it. Too much trying to shoe horn god into the discussion.

Bold: Did you just state that organisms evolve, or are you saying that god made them more evolved?

Life does not require morality, look at plants, bacteria, insects, reptiles,............... You don't seem to grasp the big picture. Social animals develop/make social morals. Of course there will be aberrant individuals, there are in all social groups. But I challenge you to prove that the aberrant individuals/groups  are completely genetic and not environmental.

If you don't think so then tell me why there are/were head hunter tribes, human sacrifice tribes?

Also, does this person even know about Epigenetics?

[brewer]

Yeah, you still don't get it. Too much trying to shoe horn god into the discussion.

Bold: Did you just state that organisms evolve, or are you saying that god made them more evolved?

Life does not require morality, look at plants, bacteria, insects, reptiles,............... You don't seem to grasp the big picture. Social animals develop/make social morals. Of course there will be aberrant individuals, there are in all social groups. But I challenge you to prove that the aberrant individuals/groups  are completely genetic and not environmental.

If you don't think so then tell me why there are/were head hunter tribes, human sacrifice tribes?

Also, does this person even know about Epigenetics?

Nope, only one god, their particular god. You'd think that if their god actually existed from the beginning of time none of the other man made gods would have had an impact. But that's not what history tells us.

Humans make god(s). Full stop.

[Ahriman]

Ah, I see, the whole nurture part of life. Yes I think you are right I look at all behavior as pretty much a direct result of genetics. I also find it hard to believe that any infinite amount of "group socializing" can somehow be passed on to offspring. Even if you can pass on some characteristics such as temperament, I would see a big difference between that and empathy. Most psychopaths did not have psychopathic parents (they might have had certain genetic predispositions to psychopathy however). 

I guess if you raised Hitler in a different environment he could have been a normal person, but then again he could have had some psychological issues (something wrong with his brain). But I am pretty sure if Hitler had children that wouldn't mean that they would be evil as well. I do not think being "good" or "bad", or having empathy, is a trait that is passed on to children (like having green eyes).

What makes more sense is that empathy is already part of life itself and that as organisms become more intelligent, for some reason this results in a higher emanation of that morality which is already inherent to life. In other words, I see morality as a direct indication or corollary of intelligence (rather than something like IQ).

Do you think it's possible that there could exist a super advanced species that is several orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans, which do not care about morality? It feels as though life has a willingness towards morality, perhaps from its own understanding that there is value in survival. But you would have to wonder how such a subjective "value" could be derived from billions of years of matter existing.

Yeah, you still don't get it. Too much trying to shoe horn god into the discussion.

Bold: Did you just state that organisms evolve, or are you saying that god made them more evolved?

Life does not require morality, look at plants, bacteria, insects, reptiles,............... You don't seem to grasp the big picture. Social animals develop/make social morals. Of course there will be aberrant individuals, there are in all social groups. But I challenge you to prove that the aberrant individuals/groups  are completely genetic and not environmental.

If you don't think so then tell me why there are/were head hunter tribes, human sacrifice tribes?

It's genetic (not environmental) because you can have two kids raised in the same kind of environment, going to the same school, eating the same food, watching the same television, etc. and one kid will develop into a pro-social sort of person and the other kid will turn out to be more anti-social.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you put one twin in a loving family and have the other raised by actual wolves….what do you think might happen?

How determined are we to die on some hill of behaviors being wholly the one or the other, in contradiction to clear and mere reality…where they modify each other.

[Jehanne]

So you wouldn't agree that God is part of life but you would agree that morality is part of life? Again, is it possible for there to exist an advanced species with no morality? Sorry if my questions sound ignorant.

In my opinion, moral truths exist to the same extent that mathematical truths exist. I don't think that a god is required to explain why 2 + 2 = 4, nor do I believe that a god is necessary to explain why the deliberate killing of innocent human beings is also wrong.

[Ahriman]

So you wouldn't agree that God is part of life but you would agree that morality is part of life? Again, is it possible for there to exist an advanced species with no morality? Sorry if my questions sound ignorant.

In my opinion, moral truths exist to the same extent that mathematical truths exist.  I don't think that a god is required to explain why 2 + 2 = 4, nor do I believe that a god is necessary to explain why the deliberate killing of innocent human beings is also wrong.

Well that's your own personal mistake. Those two things aren't the same at all.

[Jehanne]

In my opinion, moral truths exist to the same extent that mathematical truths exist.  I don't think that a god is required to explain why 2 + 2 = 4, nor do I believe that a god is necessary to explain why the deliberate killing of innocent human beings is also wrong.

Well that's your own personal mistake. Those two things aren't the same at all.

Prove it, or, provide a counter example. For instance, incest is a taboo in all cultures, from prehistoric times up through the modern era.