Home » Forums » The Sciences » Evolution of life

Morality

Posted on: March 2, 2009 - 2:49pm
EyeBallSon
Theist
EyeBallSon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2009-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Morality

 Is immorality the opposite of morality?

 

‹ Alternate Evolution? YEC biochemist sees rat ›

Posted on: March 5, 2009 - 3:38pm #51
EyeBallSon
Theist
EyeBallSon's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2009-03-02
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:A few

Nordmann wrote:

A few thousand years ago...  A few hundred years ago... 

...but what about a few million years ago?

I admit it.  I'm a dumb jock.  I haven't read the books Hamby asked me read.  I may not be ready for this conversation; but if theism is not a trait favored by natural selection, then how did it evolve in the first place?

Why does theism exist if it serves no purpose in gene propagation?

It's all in the reflexes...


Posted on: March 5, 2009 - 3:49pm #52
Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:But this is not

Vastet wrote:

But this is not always the case. The bystander effect has been studied enough to determine that there are people who will do something, regardless of how long the situation has been going on or how many people have seen it. Myself, for example. I am motivated by my morality to do something, unless I literally am incapable of doing something or if doing something will have a negative effect on the situation. I've never encountered a situation that I didn't react as soon as I was made aware of a problem unless someone else was in control and not needing help.

 

Well, since you knew what it was [bystander effect], you're aware of it so it's more likely you'll help.

But you're right, some people will help right away, but in general that is not the case.

 

 

 

Nordmann wrote:

Argh! More inexact laguage!!!!

 

The person who does nothing to help in the emergency situation you allude to is equally moral to the person who does. Neither escapes being morally evaluated by themselves and others.

 

And neither of them is exhibiting either altruism or a lack of it in your example anyway. The impulse to help in that situation is not necessarily dictated by one's altruism. And in any case, an altruist in other situations who fails to act in that particular one might indeed feel ashamed afterwards, but that shame itself confirms their basic impulse to be morally good.

 

It was a crap example of morality in play.

 

A far more typical example of morality as it applies to the human condition is the self-imposed restraint the vast majority of us employ in avoiding harming others. It is so innate a trend that we don't even think about it, except when the tendency fails to prevent such injury being done, an aberrant occurrence which the same tendency then demands that we examine, explain and justify. Religion likes to take the credit for this basic human tendency and use our own innate morality to condemn (or even justify) the aberrant behaviour.

 

But it is a lie - like much else about religion. People by and large exhibit the same moral tendencies in much the same mix of conformity and aberration regardless of the religion they may or may not subscribe to.

 

BTW - if this discussion is to make any progress (or even sense) then morality must not be confused with being perceived as good.

 

 

LOLwut?

 

 

 

 

 


Posted on: March 6, 2009 - 4:19am #53
Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:... if theism is not a

Quote:

... if theism is not a trait favored by natural selection

 

Theism is an irrational expression of a rational drive - the desire to comprehend one's environment, which itself is a component of the equally strong desire to manipulate it to the species' advantage. That desire is innate and endemic enough to be considered as having been engendered and amplified within the species, so in that sense one can say that "theism" has been favoured by natural selection, but only in the same way that parasitic species benefit from the general success of their host in surviving.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Posted on: March 6, 2009 - 4:33am #54
Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Ananus Comosus

Ananus Comosus wrote:

LOLwut?

 

If it's beyond you don't fret about it.

 


Posted on: March 6, 2009 - 1:57pm #55
Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann

Nordmann wrote:

-groan-

Smiling

Despite my language, I'm not pissed off. I was just a bit aggravated. Sorry if you took any offense.

Nordmann wrote:
 

I was referring to the pineapple quote above, as is evident from what I wrote, I thought. In future I'll be more punctilious about visibly quoting, just to avoid gratuitous offence-taking. Ok?

Sweet. I was just about to suggest the same thing. Laughing out loud

 

Nordmann wrote:

You made a reasonable and subjective analysis of your own private motivations which cannot be gainsaid therefore by anyone, not least because we're not you. It neither advanced nor deviated from the discussion in hand. It simply told us something about you.

Considering that morality is subjective, I'm not familiar with a method of communication that would exchange information about my morality without sharing myself a bit in the process. I simply had a comment to make about the bystander effect not being absolute. That was the only purpose of my post. I felt an example would help in the explanation. I think it worked, with Cpt anyway. Sticking out tongue

 

Nordmann wrote:

Stop seeing straw men everywhere. You'll end up in Oz.

That would be interesting.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 3:12pm #56
ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Morality is subjective, there is no set moral or immoral.

 

It's just another human construct.


Posted on: May 11, 2009 - 9:47pm #57
treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964976
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
EyeBallSon wrote:Thank you;

EyeBallSon wrote:

Thank you; but I'd like to take this "by the numbers."  Cool?

If neutrality does not imply opposites, what does the term 'neutral' mean?

What numbers? How many say agree or disagree, or some mathematical obfuscation of an unclear discussion of undefined undefined semantics?

As far as yor thread post goes, given nothing else, and assuming you're not interested in a Socratic discussion, given a simplistic presentation of a question ...

Yeah, you can use the words as opposites.


« first‹ previous12