DCsportsfan53 Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 The problem is that no where in history do we find a progression of morality, we are the same then as today. Wow, that's a reach. Morality definitely progresses as society does. Go back to my 12 year old girl example. 200 years ago, it was fine to marry one because school was a very small part of the picture and adult life and indepence started at an earlier age. As we industrialized and began extending the length of childhood, suddenly it's an abhorable thought to marry a 12 year old girl. That's morality adapting to the reality of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 The problem is that no where in history do we find a progression of morality, we are the same then as today. I suppose it depends on how you define "morality" Compare attitudes (as a whole) toward minorities, women, the handicapped, immigrants, etc. and you'll find much more tolerance, acceptance and respect, which is a demonstration of morality. Slavery has been largely abolished throughout the world, after having been commonplace. There are a million examples. I would argue there has been great progression of morality. Thieves and murderers still exist, but does that negate all of the other strides we have made? Not a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 'Best possible solution' is ill-defined. Especially in a evolutionary context. That's my point. Because I (and my allies) hae more guns than you. And the will to use them. Or maybe we don't. Guess we'll have to find out the hard way. Even if what you are saying is correct, would putting 'God' into the equation change anything? Putting God into the equation gives you an absolute judge that can't be wrong. It changes the equation greatly. I don't think it is going to turn many people to religion though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 What an absolute crock. We have progressed morally, just look at the end of slavery as an example. . .or how about equal rights.To say that we have not progressed as a society shows you inherent bias, and inability to think objectively. That statement should exempt you from any logical discussion on this matter, because you have shown an inability to understand what progression socially is. Oh, I see, so slavery no longer exists in this country or any other? And we have equal rights in this country and in every other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Personally, I feel that the concepts of "good" and "evil" are human constructs anyway, not natural tendencies. The ultimate natural tendency is simply for the survival and propagation of the species (for whatever reason). Morality is something we've developed over the years to help acheive that end. Yes, but we can also use those "good" and "evil" words to label "constructive" and "destructive" tendencies, for example. That makes them a little less subjective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Then there is no consistent morality, and their are no immoral people. But wait, I thought it was an evolutionary development. Funny, how we all developed everything else the same, yet the morality is inconsistent with each person. I'm sorry but this seems very convenient. Everybody has different finger prints, and I'm told iris' also. No two people are genetically identical. If the moral code is in the DNA, there is no reason to believe that there moral codes would be identical either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 so you are trying to remove religion from improvement of a society? Since every society has been influenced by some faith or another I would suggest that your task is impossible. :confused: i don't remember saying that. also, i would say that all faiths have been influence by society :2cents: I am not against something just because a religion is for it, I am also not for something just because a religion is against it. I just don't CARE what the religious view is. i just care about if it fits my views of society. So how do you explain the rest of society, you know those folks who fill our jails and prisons who are not psychopaths? i'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Oh, I see, so slavery no longer exists in this country or any other? And we have equal rights in this country and in every other. I see, so by your logic, if murder was reduced by 95%, your argument would be we're still the same because it still exists? Progression! We're not 100% there yet. So what? That doesn't prove anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 I can use your answer. Human beings have "free will" and some choose to abide by the larger society's mores, and some don't. I do that in my daily life. There are some attitudes and beliefs and mores in our society that I choose to reject, and others I choose to embrace.Free will, to whatever extent we can have free will, does not imply a creator. The problem is that if our morality is evolutionary and part of our DNA then it should be impossible to overcome it, free will doesn't work with DNA. Its like me choosing to not see in color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Putting God into the equation gives you an absolute judge that can't be wrong. It does not give you the actual judge but a concept of one. It also gives you a horde of interpreters of how that absolute judge would judge. So you don't get an absolute judge but a bunch of subjective judges who claim to represent the absolute one. Maybe it's better to do away with both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 The problem is that if our morality is evolutionary and part of our DNA then it should be impossible to overcome it, free will doesn't work with DNA. Its like me choosing to not see in color. Ever known a girl who dyed her hair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 I see, so by your logic, if murder was reduced by 95%, your argument would be we're still the same because it still exists? Progression! We're not 100% there yet. So what? That doesn't prove anything And why do people not murder? The same reason some claim that the faithful don't "fear" of punishment and reprisal, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 Ever known a girl who dyed her hair? Oh, hardly the same thing, because her dying her hair is not changing the color that her body produces hair. Come on, surely you can do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Oh, I see, so slavery no longer exists in this country or any other? And we have equal rights in this country and in every other. OUR society evolved past those points. just because some others didn't isn't proof that social evolution doesn't exist. (i seriously never thought i'd see the day where i had to defend SOCIAL evolution's merits ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 OUR society evolved past those points. just because some others didn't isn't proof that social evolution doesn't exist. No, it hasn't otherwise there wouldn't be slavery rings being busted in our country, just because our laws have changed doesn't mean that our society has changed. This is just the same as when those who say that the church isn't more moral despite its doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 DNA, why do we share the DNA on everything else but some apparently don't have the morality gene? BTW, I thought the human gnome was mapped, maybe I missed the morality gene. I need to make a couple other points: 1. There are important issues related to how humans develope that are not related to DNA. We recently saw a thread dealing w/ how many nutrients the baby gets in the mother's womb based on positioning resulting in something (I think homosequality). 2. Even if two people have the same exact "genetic code", this is the base (A,G,C, and T) sequence in the DNA, there are other molecular factors w/ respect to DNA that can result in changes. This field of study is called epigenetics. 3. There are many genes in the human genome of unknown fuction. In addition, there are stretches of DNA that have no known funtion that wouldn't be considered genes. In addition to that, there are genes of known function, but they can be "modified" during the process in which the information is decoded, and we don't know when/how/why those modifications occur in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 The problem is that if our ability to walk upright is evolutionary and part of our DNA then it should be impossible to be immobile. Does this make any more sense to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 so you are trying to remove religion from improvement of a society? Since every society has been influenced by some faith or another I would suggest that your task is impossible. Religion has played a major role in the devlopment of morality, certainly many religious organizations have greatly contributed to the progress we have made (more specifically in this country). They have also played a major role in the "evils" of the world--many millions of lives have been lost, and many millions more have been tortured as the result of religion. On the other hand, you could argue that the atheist or godless view of the world has also led to much suffering. But both viewpoints have made contributions good and bad to the world, and neither one of them can prove the other wrong. That's why I choose to be a cosmic fence-sitter and call myself agnostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 Everybody has different finger prints, and I'm told iris' also. No two people are genetically identical. If the moral code is in the DNA, there is no reason to believe that there moral codes would be identical either. Then that means we are placing people in jail for basically having different eye color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Then that means we are placing people in jail for basically having different eye color. no, we are placing them in jail for being detrimental to society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Oh, hardly the same thing, because her dying her hair is not changing the color that her body produces hair. Come on, surely you can do better. It is choosing to ignore the color that her body produces, for one reason or another. yes, it's a stretch...but I think you get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Yes, but we can also use those "good" and "evil" words to label "constructive" and "destructive" tendencies, for example. That makes them a little less subjective Totally. I agree. Just to be contrary, though, I will suggest that you have to destroy to construct, and you you have to construct to destroy. A simple example--the American Civil War was very destructive, but out of that destruction I feel we were able to construct and greater, more prosperous, and eventually more inclusive and equal society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Then that means we are placing people in jail for basically having different eye color. I'm defending Dawkins point of view w/o indorsing it because I believe the way you have turned this discussion is pointless, and can not be used to defeat Dawkins arguements. We are placing people in jail because there DNA gives them the flexibility to break the law, and as a result of a series of chemical, electrical, and physical interactions in their brains they have decieded to do so. This is the point, I've been trying to make. If you throw out God, the "right" to judge becomes very tenous. What makes your genetically (or societal) derived moral code superior to mine? Nothing. So why should you get to imprision me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I just want to point out to anyone who hasn't noticed (or cared to notice) that we have 3 arguments being discussed for the origins of morality: Religion Genetic evolution Social evolution ok, carry on with the debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted July 13, 2007 Author Share Posted July 13, 2007 Religion has played a major role in the devlopment of morality, certainly many religious organizations have greatly contributed to the progress we have made (more specifically in this country). I agree. They have also played a major role in the "evils" of the world--many millions of lives have been lost, and many millions more have been tortured as the result of religion. Ah, the religious wars argument. The problem is that I think this whole thing is way overstated, because it was not the church that did these things, but instead it was the Princes who sought more power and land that used religion to rally the troops if you will. What's more is that the evidence that those people got it wrong is contained within the scripture itself, because it speaks against their actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.