Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If morality is part of evolutionary processes, how do you explain the middle eastern countries concept of morality?
If morality is a social construct, what happens when you move to a country where it's socially acceptable to marry an 8-year-old? Would it then be considered "okay" because its part of a social construct you reside within?
Or what about a country where it's socially acceptable to throw acid in a woman's face because she degraded the family by not wearing a veil?
Evolutionary and social constructs as the basis for morality are flawed.
Or homosexuality for that matter
Evolutionary psychology can't explain homosexuality even though homosexuality isn't immoral. This is why the scientific community continues to distance itself from EvoPych.
Find anything moral in a given society, and you'll find it amoral in another. This is why there isn't anything inherently scientific in morality.
Last edited by knowledgeiskey; 12-14-2013 at 01:56 PM..
I think the following article states a strong argument for a supreme designer in regards to morality.
"The first thing that would be true of morality would be that it would not be objective in nature. In other words, what we consider to be moral or immoral would not be a fact independent of our belief in the same. Murder would not be objectively wrong or evil, nor would rape, racism, or a whole host of other actions that we deem to be wrong, or even evil. In the same way, actions like helping the poor and needy, rescuing a drowning child, or being kind would not be objectively good things. It is possible, given evolution, that we could just as easily live in a world where killing the disabled or even people with certain characteristics would be considered to be good, or preventing the torture of animals would be evil."
I agree that morality is basically a social construct, where religion has played a major role. But in a more objective sense it is all still based on science, evolution and genetics. Trivers and Dawkins have explored this extensively and have helped to explain this over the years.
I agree that morality is basically a social construct, where religion has played a major role. But in a more objective sense it is all still based on science, evolution and genetics. Trivers and Dawkins have explored this extensively and have helped to explain this over the years.
Morality is ABSOLUTELY helpful from a raw evolutionary perspective. Being kind to others gives us more social contacts and more opportunities to breed. Assisting or even saving the lives of members of the same species gives us or our relatives more breeding opportunities. Surely you think it makes sense from this point of view that we would feed our own family; aren't all humans related and genetically compatible, thereby being a family?
Contrast that with the ingroup/outgroup mentality that's the cause for racism, war, etc, and you get a picture of how complicated we are as human beings and how there are so many inconsistencies and irrationalities that our supposed "grand creator" instilled in us.
Not really. Keeping useless eaters around to breed with isn't helpful at all. Encouraging the stupidest and least capable to keep on breeding isn't useful either. Nature has a way of weeding out the weak and less intelligent.
The evolution crowd will make up any silly theory to keep on justifying their social agenda of massive welfare handouts.
Not really. Keeping useless eaters around to breed with isn't helpful at all. Encouraging the stupidest and least capable to keep on breeding isn't useful either. Nature has a way of weeding out the weak and less intelligent.
The evolution crowd will make up any silly theory to keep on justifying their social agenda of massive welfare handouts.
You just contradicted yourself, the basis of evolution is the survival of the fittest. As a society we have created moral obligations to help those in need.
Evolution is like looking at a great work of art and coming up with the theory that it just randomly happened, that paint cans must have spilled in such a way.
People find a shard of pottery in some old forest and they assume humans created it, even though they have no proof at all that a human created it. Yet something far more intricate, beautiful, and awesome just happened by accident.
That article is not convincing at all. It concludes that "Life has too much evidence of design and design begs for a designer." I think the last part is simply due to the discomfort that so many people have with the idea that there might not be a designer. I don't have a problem with the idea that over millions of years nature has taken us to where we are today. That we don't understand it all doesn't make me "beg for a designer."
Evolution is like looking at a great work of art and coming up with the theory that it just randomly happened, that paint cans must have spilled in such a way.
People find a shard of pottery in some old forest and they assume humans created it, even though they have no proof at all that a human created it. Yet something far more intricate, beautiful, and awesome just happened by accident.
You think human created mountains? No, I think things like Mt Hood in Oregon evolved. No man nor god placed it there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
