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.
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."
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.
These things were all fine and condoned in the Old Testament.
How many millions did God kill? Easily over 2 million in Bible verses.
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives". Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Morality comes from men and their times not from a best-guestimate of a supreme being.
"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.
Morality isn't objective though so I think the author is starting from a false premise.
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 am a believer, but I think morality very well could be the product of evolution. Social evolution, if not biological. Mankind is a social animal. We survive best in groups. And we survive best when the members of a particular group are cooperating. Lower types of social animals may do fine with simple hunting strategies as a group, like wolves, or gathering, like ants. But humans have far more complex brains, and so it seems to follow naturally that their behavior would likewise be more complex. They would devise strategies to encourage behaviors that maximized the survival of their communities. Morality does this. Thievery, adultery, murder, assault, rape, etc are all immoral. They are also all behaviors which fracture group cohesion. Why would the hunter or gatherer bring food back to the tribe if he or she knew that someone else was just going to steal it? From that perspective, immoral behavior is objectively wrong. The individual relies on the group for survival, so the individual behaves in ways that make the group operate harmoniously.
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.
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."
Murder, rape, racism, etc., all inhibit the efficient functioning of a society. Individuals thrive, and are thus more likely to pass on their genetic legacies, in societies in which these things are generally forbidden.
The converse is true for things like helping the poor, rendering aid, etc.
So those individuals (organisms) inclined to support such rules proscribing the former and prescribing the latter tend to have better rates of producing viable offspring (said offspring, of course, doing better in societies with such traits).
Positive feedback ensues.
There's a biological term for this phenomenon: natural selection.
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.
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.
