Sinjin,
Thanks for the thoughtful, response. (No. I don't think you are thick headed. I disagree with you, but I don't think you are thickheaded.)
The reason I believe it is inconsistent for evolution to have lead to the creation of morality goes something like this (if I can get my thoughts into words...)
If DE is the answer, then de facto, we are the same in essence as all other animal life. It can be no other way. Morality, as I am discussing it, transcends society, culture, etc. It is NOT man's law, it is the innate understanding that some things are "wrong" without there having to be a law to tell you so. Example, absent a law, I'd wager you'd still thing it "wrong" if you watched me kill and eat your next door neighbor. You'd not need a law to tell you "something ain't right here". (I will acknowledge that there are exceptions -Dhalmer being one- but you get the picture.
Also, animals DO have a sense of need, desire, love, affection, commitment, etc. They have emotion, they have intelligence, they have instinct, but the do not have "morality".
I believe that humans can't NOT create morality. If they can -and did- then morality is no greater a guide than is man's law. Morality can change with the time and seasons, so that in 100 years, it might be both legal and moral to kell and eat your neighbor, just as the animals do.
In simple terms:
a) one unique characteristic of humans is the existance of morality.
b) morality, by my definition, is seperate and unique from man's law.
c) Morality can not be invented or created by man, if it is then it isn't morality; it is just more of man's "laws".

To accept the existance of morality, by my definition, is the acknowledgement of a "set of standards" (for lack of a better way of putting it) that are independent and unaffected by man's law.
Without that acknowledgement, again by definition, there is no such thing as "right and wrong", there is ONLY legal and illegal.

The last few sentences are key to my point.

I appreciate and await your thoughtful response. And I DO appreciate the respectful debate. THIS is how more discussions should take place (IMHO).

Thanks again.

 

An honest question/questions. Interesting indeed. A bit confused here. Not trying to bait or flame anybody. A bit over my head but I'll try to convey my thoughts and questions as best I can.

One question that comes to mind after all this is where do homosexuals fit in the "evolutionary process". Since homosexuals cannot reproduce among themselves, that would put them at the very bottom of the evolutionary ladder. Since homosexuality is found in all aspects of society from the very rich and powerful the the very poor, economics are not a factor. If homosexuality is abnormal, it would seem that over time homosexuals would evolve out of the picture. But this has not happened since the history of mankind. What would be the safety net here that would allow homosexuality to exist if homosexuals cannot reproduce?

Do you think there is some evolutionary flaw in humans that allows heterosexual humans to continue to produce homosexual humans who cannot reproduce among themselves? If homosexual behavior is normal, (i.e. born homosexual verses choosen lifestyle), it would seem there would be some evolutionary change through time to allow reproduction.

Just wondering.

 

DD,
Your's is a legitimate question. Treated as a inquiry and not bait/flame (as you stated) it is deserving of thought. Quite frankly, I have never thought of it as you presented it.
From a PURELY "scientific" point (i.e. assuming DE is valid) it would seem a valid deduction that homosexuality - if it is an abberation in nautre - would "die out".
I know others will view it differently, but to me, this (in a round-about sort of way) sort of reinforces the argument against DE.

 

Actually, I think the reverse might be true. If you subscribe to Maslow's Pyramid of Human Needs, the top of the pyramid, being achieved only after all other human basic needs have been met, is self-actualization. The ultimate fully self-actualized human does what 'feels right' to him and is unemcumbered by society's restrictions. He is, therefore, free to experiment any way he choses without acting defensively.
It was this type of psychobabble that led Carl Rogers to his belief in the actualizing tendencies of all species. Without going into a lot of deep psychology 201, it was this philosophy that was mainstreamed in schools,and society in general, that screwed up the minds of Baby Boomers in the 60's and 70's. Now, some of Rogers disciples and co-horts are traveling around renouncing the technique as it has been applied outside of psychotherapy.

 

Until the beginning of our economic boom after WW11, a majority of birthings were attended to by a midwife or family member in the home, not doctors in hospitals facing liability issues. For those unfamiliar with some of the responsibilites of a midwife in that era and prior to that era, few obviously deformed or physical lacking births came to term, primariy for socioeconomic purposes.

As Whistler points out, the safety net provided by the guilt of our wealth has altered socioeconomic attitudes and, in many cases, encouraged marginal breeding. Go to any South American country and see how many deformed children you can count, or how many mothers have ten specialists under a funded social program treating a deformed child not expected to reach five years of age.

 

Quoting Gerogedavila:
"As Whistler points out, the safety net provided by the guilt of our wealth has altered socioeconomic attitudes and, in many cases, encouraged marginal breeding. "

So, is it safe to say, in summary, that is the answer to the question "Why".

From my perspective, that sounds like something of a contradiction in terms (when taken in the context of DE accounting for our existance independant of a God), and perhaps (IMHO) even grasping at straws. It seems that some lengths are being gone to to "explain away" the existance of a "moral compunction" to care for those less fortunate , etc. and instead ascribe it to "guilt" which arose somewhere along the evolutionary timeline.

to illustrate my point: if it is only due to guilt - or some other "self-imposed" mental process resulting from our evolutionary progress, then there IS no "higher moral standard". SOOO, absent a law against it - here in the US and/or Canada, would it be OK, nothing bad, indifferent, or whatever term you chose, to allow all families the option of reviewing their child at birth and deciding to kill it if it were deemed defective or deformed?

 

Originally posted by BrianA
Quoting Gerogedavila:
"As Whistler points out, the safety net provided by the guilt of our wealth has altered socioeconomic attitudes and, in many cases, encouraged marginal breeding. "
If you're speaking domestically, it isn't "guilt of our wealth", it's coerced theft of our income through taxation. We give to foreign charities out of guilt .

So, is it safe to say, in summary, that is the answer to the question "Why".

From my perspective, that sounds like something of a contradiction in terms (when taken in the context of DE accounting for our existance independant of a God), and perhaps (IMHO) even grasping at straws. It seems that some lengths are being gone to to "explain away" the existance of a "moral compunction" to care for those less fortunate , etc. and instead ascribe it to "guilt" which arose somewhere along the evolutionary timeline.

There's no mechanism in evolution for te creation of a soul.

to illustrate my point: if it is only due to guilt - or some other "self-imposed" mental process resulting from our evolutionary progress, then there IS no "higher moral standard". SOOO, absent a law against it - here in the US and/or Canada, would it be OK, nothing bad, indifferent, or whatever term you chose, to allow all families the option of reviewing their child at birth and deciding to kill it if it were deemed defective or deformed?
Unfortunately, we're not too far from the scenrio that you mentioned above. With legalized partial birth abortion, a woman can "pull the plug" on her child up to the point that the head is exposed. After that, it's murder. Funny (cynical "funny") that the difference between legal and murder is only a few inches.

 

Legally it wouldn't be wrong. Morally? Let's discuss that.

There are certain societies where undesirable children are either cast away or killed outright (e.g. girls in China). Prevailing morality in certain segments of that society believe this practice to moral. They see no problem with doing such a thing. Other segments of Chinese society have a real problem with this. This practice is illegal, but moral or immoral depending on your upbringing and life education.

This is only one example but it proves that the definition of 'moral' is not universal. That is, your 'moral compass' is a product of your experiences in life. Look at the cannibals of yore...it didn't bother them to eat each other. You or I would find this practice abominable. But why? Perhaps because we didn't grow up in culture that exposed us to the succulent 'other other white meat'?

Going back to your example of infanticide in the US and Canada. If the practice became legal and widespread due to economic necessity, it wouldn't take but a generation or two for almost all moral resistance to fade. But would it still be wrong?

That depends on who the judge is. You believe in God, therefore you hold him as the highest judge independent of humanity. I guess he would get to decide.

I don't hold a God as the supreme arbiter of human affairs. Right or wrong are only applicable to the times and the situations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Whistler

 

Whistler,
Thanks for a well worded reply.
It appears you have summarized your position well. Clearly I disagree but I believe now I understand (at least your position. That of others might vary).

It is: We humans try to save kids with birth defects (etc.) because we CHOOSE to. There is no moral authority beyond the laws of man that compels us to do so. Times and societies change and differ; so does that deemed acceptable. (I'll stop short of saying "moral" because I gather it is not in issue of moral from the position you take.)
My position is: We do so because it is the proper moral thing to do. We (as individuals and societies) will inevitably "screw up" and there are clearly situations where things aren't crystal clear, cut-and-dried. Honest caring people can and will take different points of view. But, there still exists a moral compass beyond that defined by man.

As an example, no matter the changes in society, I do not think it would ever be "moral neutral" (if there is such an expression) to stop off at your neighbor's house, kill them, then eat them.


OBTW, on your example of cannibalism, if they think it OK and it is "OK" within their society, what if the majority of American's wished to remove a woman's right to vote and wanted to reinstitute slavery? If the laws changed, and society went in that direction, would that make it OK?

 

Originally posted by whistler
Legally it wouldn't be wrong. Morally? Let's discuss that.

There are certain societies where undesirable children are either cast away or killed outright (e.g. girls in China). Prevailing morality in certain segments of that society believe this practice to moral. They see no problem with doing such a thing. Other segments of Chinese society have a real problem with this. This practice is illegal, but moral or immoral depending on your upbringing and life education.

I believe that you've mis-interpretted what occurs in China. This is an act of desperation practiced in China, not a moral choice. Families that have more than one child are punished by the government. They are denied certain privledges, jobs, etc.


This is only one example but it proves that the definition of 'moral' is not universal. That is, your 'moral compass' is a product of your experiences in life. Look at the cannibals of yore...it didn't bother them to eat each other. You or I would find this practice abominable. But why? Perhaps because we didn't grow up in culture that exposed us to the succulent 'other other white meat'?

Morality evolves as man evolves and becomes more civilized, but basic concepts of morality have always existed.

Going back to your example of infanticide in the US and Canada. If the practice became legal and widespread due to economic necessity, it wouldn't take but a generation or two for almost all moral resistance to fade. But would it still be wrong?
I disagree. It will always be percieved as wrong.
You equate necessity with morality. The two aren't equivalent. In a desperate situation, people can make immoral choices in order to survive. That doesn't make the practice moral.

That depends on who the judge is. You believe in God, therefore you hold him as the highest judge independent of humanity. I guess he would get to decide.

I don't hold a God as the supreme arbiter of human affairs. Right or wrong are only applicable to the times and the situations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even our Forefathers recognized certain inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator.
Unlike you, I don't believ that all ethics are situational. To me, that's a dangerous construct.

 

Nicely put brian.. very nice.


Nascar Junkie

 

Wouldn't the 'moral choice' be to stop having children? All I am pointing out is the fact that a certain segment of the population finds it acceptable to abandon their infant daughters to solve a personal problem.

Furthermore, only daughters are abondoned. Sons are so valued and daughters so "undervalued" that couples will continue to have and then abandon daughters until a son is born. It is not uncommon for some peasant couple to have abandoned several daughters. This is certainly not an act of desperation. This is (was) widespread wanton and callous disregard for human life.

Getting back to the concept of morality. You clearly believe that morality exists independent of the human condition. That is, humans are supposed to live up to a certain set of guidelines imposed from outside humanity. For some reason we are different than all the other animals on the planet, for whom we have already concluded morality doesn't exist. I assume (I know, I know, assume=*** of u and me) that you believe these come from a God.

I am inclined to disbelieve this. We are nothing more than animals who for some reason (it is possible it is God, but that would be a whole new thread on why I don't think it is) have aquired a level of consciousness, intelligence and sociability unmatched elsewhere in the animal kingdom.

The only reason we have a 'moral' compunction against killing and eating our neighbor is because we don't want that to happen to us. I am speaking of the social contract ="You don't kill me, I won't kill you." Of course, this contract has evolved to include caring for the elderly, the sick, the deformed, the poor, etc. because we are never sure that we won't end up like one of them and if we do...we would like to be taken care of. When someone breaks the social contract (e.g. murder or rape) we are not outraged that they have done something immoral, we fear for ourselves and our families and we work to prevent something from happening to them. Perhaps vengance - an eye for an eye? Or in more modern times, sex offender rehabilitation programs.

Whistler


PS I am going out of town for a week. See you all later.

 

More questions.

Where does that basic concept come from. Who or what put it there? Did it just happen and if so why? Is mankind more of a moral creature now than we were one, two or five hundred years ago? Are we more moral that the colonists who came to this land as we have become more cilivized then they? Were they more moral than the Indians they took the land from, since they were less civilized than the colonists?

Many in this country believe that immorality is at an all time high. Many of the things considered to be moral or acceptable in our/todays society would be viewed as immoral and unacceptable just fifty years ago. One example but there are many more:

Many in our society now believe its OK to lie. People accept the fact that politicians will or may do so in order to be elected or relected. Students in our schools and colleges accept the fact that lying/cheating is part of getting by. People lie on employment applications and believe it is OK to do so. There are studies to prove this. Honesty is a fading virtue. Given that, could it be that man has simply become more tolerant of things considered to be immoral, or is man reclassifying what is or is not moral or acceptable? I wonder where this evolution in tolerance or reclassifying some of the things once considered to be immoral and unacceptable will lead us to.

Do you think man is elvolving into a more enlightened being where the lines once separating morality from immorality are being blured or removed? I wonder, if man continues on his current path and continues to reclassify or accept things once considered immoral or unacceptable, if man will elvolve into a species where one day nothing will be considered immoral or unacceptable. It would seem that there would have to be a set standard or what's to stop us from becoming an anarchist society where everyone has their own definition of morality and lawfulness?

Again, who or what sets that standard? If that standard is some man made law that forbids or allows certain behavior, then it has nothing to do with morality, it just the law. But what would that law be based on? Who decides what's right and wrong? (I believe this concept was put forth earlier by the thread starter). If the law is based on some moral guide lines, then the law infringes on someones else's standards of behavior/morality who do not share those standards. Who or what should set those guide lines? Who among us can sit in judgement of someone else's morality/lawlessness if morality or laws governing behavior is relative? What makes me better than you or you better than I? If one man is no better than the other, who can make a law or set a moral guide line for the other to follow? Who or what would be/should be the final authority to hold us accountable? Is there a higher authority? If so, who is willing to accept it? If not, then what's the point of anything?

What's the glue that holds man together and seperates us from the animal kingdom? Given todays outlook on how some people view morality and where it comes from, it would seem that man is becoming less civilized IMO.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DailyDriver
More questions.

Where does that basic concept come from. Who or what put it there? Did it just happen and if so why? Is mankind more of a moral creature now than we were one, two or five hundred years ago? Are we more moral that the colonists who came to this land as we have become more cilivized then they? Were they more moral than the Indians they took the land from, since they were less civilized than the colonists?

You ask good questions. While I don't pretend to have all of the answers, I will answer them with my opinion, based on facts that I've learned over the years.
Morality has clearly evolved as mankind has evolved. The Code of Hammurabi (~1780BC) was one of the earliest set of laws that exhibited moral concepts. It was derived from many Babylyonian tribal customs and brought together as a compilation of those, which included input from the temple where most of the contracts and judicial decisions were recorded and stored. The oath " by god and the king" appears at the end of deeds, for example. It is believed that they are also the foundation for ancient Hebrew Law and the Ten Commandments.
Are we more moral than our predecessor? We find slavery appalling and don't believe in genocide, so I'd say "yes".


Many in this country believe that immorality is at an all time high. Many of the things considered to be moral or acceptable in our/todays society would be viewed as immoral and unacceptable just fifty years ago. One example but there are many more:

Many in our society now believe its OK to lie. People accept the fact that politicians will or may do so in order to be elected or relected. Students in our schools and colleges accept the fact that lying/cheating is part of getting by. People lie on employment applications and believe it is OK to do so. There are studies to prove this. Honesty is a fading virtue. Given that, could it be that man has simply become more tolerant of things considered to be immoral, or is man reclassifying what is or is not moral or acceptable? I wonder where this evolution in tolerance or reclassifying some of the things once considered to be immoral and unacceptable will lead us to.

Do you think man is elvolving into a more enlightened being where the lines once separating morality from immorality are being blured or removed? I wonder, if man continues on his current path and continues to reclassify or accept things once considered immoral or unacceptable, if man will elvolve into a species where one day nothing will be considered immoral or unacceptable. It would seem that there would have to be a set standard or what's to stop us from becoming an anarchist society where everyone has their own definition of morality and lawfulness?
I touched on your veru concerns in my last post on "self-actualization". The ultimate self actualized person believes that he is above the law. One of Maslow and Carl Roger's associates was on a lecture tour a number of years ago and I happened to catch his presentation. He strongly apologized for mainstreaming the technique outside of psychoanalysis and gave numerous examples of the harmful results of using these techniques outside of psychotherapy. It's been a while since I heard his talk, but one example stuck out. He took several quotes made by Hillary Clinton and used them as examples of self-actualization gone awry.
Her's a link to pop psychology via self-actualization being mainstreamed.http://www.performance-unlimited.com/samain.htm
"Self Acceptance
Accepts himself, others and the natural world the way they are. Sees human nature
as is, has a lack of crippling guilt or shame, enjoys himself without regret or
apology, and has no unnecessary inhibitions."

This is a dangerous philosophy, IMHO. A fully self-actualized person behaves as if he was "God".


Again, who or what sets that standard? If that standard is some man made law that forbids or allows certain behavior, then it has nothing to do with morality, it just the law. But what would that law be based on? Who decides what's right and wrong? (I believe this concept was put forth earlier by the thread starter). If the law is based on some moral guide lines, then the law infringes on someones else's standards of behavior/morality who do not share those standards. Who or what should set those guide lines? Who among us can sit in judgement of someone else's morality/lawlessness if morality or laws governing behavior is relative? What makes me better than you or you better than I? If one man is no better than the other, who can make a law or set a moral guide line for the other to follow? Who or what would be/should be the final authority to hold us accountable? Is there a higher authority? If so, who is willing to accept it? If not, then what's the point of anything?

All of your questions are thought-provoking with no singularly agreed-upon answers. For my personal behavior, I do my best to follow the Bible. I'm certainly not perfect in my conformance, but at least I have a pretty good roadmap to perfection.
I think that it's a mistake to suffer analysis paralysis when coming to grips on who should or shouldn't judge. In reality, we make judgements on people every day. It's just not "PC" to say that you do so.

What's the glue that holds man together and seperates us from the animal kingdom? Given todays outlook on how some people view morality and where it comes from, it would seem that man is becoming less civilized IMO.
That depends on your definition of "civilized". Civilized and moral aren't necessarily equivlents.
I think that we are becoming more civilized and less moral, especially when I hear supposedly leaders of "civilized" countries arguing against the removal of a madman practicing genocide on his people. on legal grounds.

 

[begin rant]

This thread made me laugh. I thought it would be a serious dicussion about human values and those that supported life, but I was wrong.

First off, one of our fearless moderates separates humans from the animal kingdom. This made me laugh because humans are part of the animal kingdom. We share so much with animals such as our senses, both animals and humans bleed. They both can even feel. Animals dont have morality because they dont have as highly developed thought processes as humans do. Other animals species have other highly developed senses that humans do not have.

As far as kids with birth defects of all types. I don't think it is right to kill of children with birth defects. Everyone and everyting deserves the right to live. God creates us all and he does not make mistakes. Who are we as mere laymen to make such decisions that should only be made my God.

Being the son of someone who is disabled, I see how people who are ignorant react to her. Without those with birth defects, the ignorant people wouldn't have anyone to stare at or make fun of. Those of you know who you are.

[/end rant]