Can morality arise from natural selection?

[1137]

How exactly am I easy to control? You are completely wrong here, friend. It is attachment to self-interests that makes beings easy to control, not the other way around as you posit. If I am in a position of power and I know what your attachment is, be it money, fame, respect, etc., all I have to do is press your button and I instantly control you.

I would be very interested in your explanation of how you'd control anyone who was free of selfish attachment so that I may put you right.

Wait... seriously? I am not sure you know the difference between self-interest and selfishness. Obviously if you are selfish you will be easy to control, because people can do a simple thing to control you as stated. You are much easier to control without having self interest though. If you are no looking out for yourself, conforming to a community, allowing people to walk on you, etc, you have little self-interest and therefore are easier to control. If you care about your freedom, spirituality, Self in general, how will someone control you? If you are selfish, you only care about yourself, and usually some very specific things. People can control you through such things.

Go ahead and "set me right". Or get off your arrogant high horse and look up these concepts so you know the difference. I am not a first grade teacher, I do not have time to explain and define such unbelievably simple things.

 

[Prophet]

Wait... seriously? I am not sure you know the difference between self-interest and selfishness. Obviously if you are selfish you will be easy to control, because people can do a simple thing to control you as stated. You are much easier to control without having self interest though. If you are no looking out for yourself, conforming to a community, allowing people to walk on you, etc, you have little self-interest and therefore are easier to control. If you care about your freedom, spirituality, Self in general, how will someone control you? If you are selfish, you only care about yourself, and usually some very specific things. People can control you through such things.

Go ahead and "set me right". Or get off your arrogant high horse and look up these concepts so you know the difference. I am not a first grade teacher, I do not have time to explain and define such unbelievably simple things.

I'm quite aware that self-interest and selfishness are not the same thing. Selfishness comes about by attachment to self-interest.

You say because I am not selfish I am easily controlled. I've already demonstrated how selfish beings are easily controlled, which you've admitted as valid. I do not feel that you've done the same for your point of view. You think by being selfless that I reduce myself and cease to care about my freedom and spirituality, but I know the Truth: Only by being selfless can I find my true value.

Let's say we have two powerful politicians. One of these politicians is a very selfish being. This type of politician tends to be in somebody's pocket.

How do you go about buying the other politician who puts the needs of others first?

Which of these politicians is treating themselves with more respect for their own freedom and spirituality? Which of these politicians is merely corrupting themselves?

 

[Quiddity]

It doesn't really matter if it can or did as the human psyche is more complex then natural selection itself. People can make a choice to die without good reason (as an extreme example). The point being is that every other species moves toward life and away from death. Humans, not necessarily......

 

[1137]

Wait... seriously? I am not sure you know the difference between self-interest and selfishness. Obviously if you are selfish you will be easy to control, because people can do a simple thing to control you as stated. You are much easier to control without having self interest though. If you are no looking out for yourself, conforming to a community, allowing people to walk on you, etc, you have little self-interest and therefore are easier to control. If you care about your freedom, spirituality, Self in general, how will someone control you? If you are selfish, you only care about yourself, and usually some very specific things. People can control you through such things.

I'm quite aware that self-interest and selfishness are not the same thing. Selfishness comes about by attachment to self-interest.

You say because I am not selfish I am easily controlled. I've already demonstrated how selfish beings are easily controlled, which you've admitted as valid. I do not feel that you've done the same for your point of view. You think by being selfless that I reduce myself and cease to care about my freedom and spirituality, but I know the Truth: Only by being selfless can I find my true value.

Learn how to read before engaging in philosophical debates. You have to set priorities! I said if you have no self-interest you are easy to control. We are not talking about selfishness and selflessness, we are talking about having self-interest. You say you are aware of the differences, but evidence says otherwise.

 

[Quiddity]

**MOD ADVISORY**​

Let's keep it civil. We can make our points without making it personal.​

 

[Prophet]

Learn how to read before engaging in philosophical debates. You have to set priorities! I said if you have no self-interest you are easy to control. We are not talking about selfishness and selflessness, we are talking about having self-interest. You say you are aware of the differences, but evidence says otherwise.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I started this thread and started talking about selflessness first, correct? I have only ever said to be selfless. You are the only one out of us two who says selflessness destroys our self-worth by elimininating self-interest. I have never said anything approaching that. That is your addition alone. Your continued insistence that I don't understand my own beliefs has been rather insulting, but still I've refused to go down to the level of trading ad hominem attacks with you.

You have still not reasoned out for anyone here how a being who is selfless can be as easily controlled as a selfish being. You have only stated and repeated "if you have no self-interest you are easy to control" with which I strongly disagree and have given my reasons. I have asked repeatedly for the logical means by which you can control a selfless being. I asked how you'd get a selfless politician in your pocket, and your only response was more insult.

I suspect insults are all you have.

 

[Prophet]

Agreed. But if one gives up self interest they become easier to control. It is narcissism, they feel like martyrs. It also allows for self victimization and therefore pity from fellow confirmists and a greater sense of community.

Pure non sequitur, by the way.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is a fairly common atheist claim that evolution can create morality.

Question for debate: Can morality arise from natural selection? Futhermore, can the morality we experience be shown to be congruent with a model of morality that arises from natural selection?

Evolution can't create anything.

Humanity is the result of evolution and humans created morality.

This isn't a difficult question.

 

[Prophet]

After we humans created morality, did we then somehow communicate morality to many higher animals such as canines and dolphins?

 

[1137]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I started this thread and started talking about selflessness first, correct? I have only ever said to be selfless. You are the only one out of us two who says selflessness destroys our self-worth by elimininating self-interest. I have never said anything approaching that. That is your addition alone. Your continued insistence that I don't understand my own beliefs has been rather insulting, but still I've refused to go down to the level of trading ad hominem attacks with you.

You have still not reasoned out for anyone here how a being who is selfless can be as easily controlled as a selfish being. You have only stated and repeated "if you have no self-interest you are easy to control" with which I strongly disagree and have given my reasons. I have asked repeatedly for the logical means by which you can control a selfless being. I asked how you'd get a selfless politician in your pocket, and your only response was more insult.

I suspect insults are all you have.

1. If you have no self interest, there is no reason to care about yourself.
2. Without the self (selflessness), there is no individuality.
3. So, with no self interest there is no individuality.
4. With no individuality, there is no freedom.
5. So, with no self interest there is no freedom.
6. If you have no freedom, you are easier to or already complety controlled.
Therefore, with no self interest you are easier to control.

I didn't argue further because it is overly obvious. What am I supposed to argue against besides you when you brought out the logical fallacies in the first place, with your straw man arguments and putting words in my mouth? Arrogant passive agressive nonsense is still ad hominem fallacies, except I don't play games and am up front. So if you want to argue what I am actually saying, go for it.

 

[1137]

I don't even remember how we got off on this. The mind numbing high school tactics threw me off. You asked if morality can arise from natural selection. The answer is no, and quite simply. Morals are either completely absolute or relative. If morals are relative, and come from evolution however that is supposed to happen, they are just opinions. So, either morals are absolute laws and exist outside of us, or morals don't really exist at all.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

After we humans created morality, did we then somehow communicate morality to many higher animals such as canines and dolphins?

I speak whale.

 

[Songbird]

I speak whale.

The most beautiful language there is.

 

[1137]

The most beautiful language there is.

Well that depends on the specific dialect. I prefer Orca.

 

[Songbird]

Well that depends on the specific dialect. I prefer Orca.

ME TOO.

Everyone loves the Orca!

 

[Prophet]

1. If you have no self interest, there is no reason to care about yourself.
2. Without the self (selflessness), there is no individuality.
3. So, with no self interest there is no individuality.
4. With no individuality, there is no freedom.
5. So, with no self interest there is no freedom.
6. If you have no freedom, you are easier to or already complety controlled.
Therefore, with no self interest you are easier to control.

I didn't argue further because it is overly obvious. What am I supposed to argue against besides you when you brought out the logical fallacies in the first place, with your straw man arguments and putting words in my mouth? Arrogant passive agressive nonsense is still ad hominem fallacies, except I don't play games and am up front. So if you want to argue what I am actually saying, go for it.

Very well, sir. I will go for it.

1. Your first point tries to hide the implication that selflessness destroys self-interest. I have already taken a position against this earlier in this very thread:

Perhaps someone else's version of selflessness says that when you put considerations of other people before your own that you become worthless as a result. That's how the ego thinks. The hidden flawed logic behind it goes like this:

"I get my sense of self-worth by comparison. If I put the considerations of others before my own, my self-worth is diminished. You see, I cannot appreciate what I have... I can only enjoy what I have more than others."

In your experience of morality, do you find instances where a selfless act has diminished you, not in money or time, but in true self-worth? Are people who volunteer at homeless shelters diminished in value by their service to beings who can give nothing in return? Are doctors who volunteer at free clinics performing an immoral service to society? No, on both accounts? Is this the part where you add another rule to your list that makes your model of morality fit what we see? I sure hope to avoid that game with you. I've done it before.

You think by loving all others that I lose love for myself. You seem to think love is a zero sum game that always has winners and losers. It's not the truth. By loving all others, you gain love for yourself.

2-6. These read like Star Wars when jedis would wax poetic about the path to the dark side, and they rely completely on point 1. Without point 1 it is complete non sequitur.

 

[1137]

Very well, sir. I will go for it.

1. Your first point tries to hide the implication that selflessness destroys self-interest. I have already taken a position against this earlier in this very thread:



2-6. These read like Star Wars when jedis would wax poetic about the path to the dark side, and they rely completely on point 1. Without point 1 it is complete non sequitur.

I was going on because you are having a very difficult time getting what I am saying. What in the world are you talking about? The argument blatantly states that lack of self interest leads to complete selflessness which leads to loss of individuality which makes you easier to control. You can speak for me as much as you want, but that doesn't mean they are my words. If you would like to argue against what I am saying, not your straw men, I'll be here.

 

[Prophet]

Does anyone here fully understand the apparent thing that The Doors of Perception is trying to point out to me? I would appreciate a third opinion. He seems wildly inconsistent to me. He continuously refuses to acknowledge how exactly he gets from selflessness to a lack of self-interest.

Lack of self-interest leads to complete selflessness? That is the whole of your support for selflessness destroying self-interest? Kind of circular isn't it?

 

[Prophet]

It is the extinguishing of all selfish attachment that leads to complete selflessness.

 

[1137]

Does anyone here fully understand the apparent thing that The Doors of Perception is trying to point out to me? I would appreciate a third opinion. He seems wildly inconsistent to me. He continuously refuses to acknowledge how exactly he gets from selflessness to a lack of self-interest.

Lack of self-interest leads to complete selflessness? That is the whole of your support for selflessness destroying self-interest? Kind of circular isn't it?

Lack of self-interest leads to selflessness. Accordingly, selflessness destroys self-interest, as you do not care about the Self.

Lack of self-interest contributes to selflessness, which kills individuality. If you are selfless, your self interest has been completely destroyed.

Lack of Self-interest is part of selflesaness, but not totally selfless. But, If you are totally selfless, there is already no self-interest.

Inconsistent should be in the dictionary. But it does not mean repeating the exact same thing over and over because someone cannot get it. As a philosopher, I have to base everything on logic. Contradictions are not logical. You saying I am inconsistent when I am repeating the same thing is a contradiction. You saying that I have not explained myself when I have in many ways is a contradiction. And when you ran out of criticism you resorted to trying to publically point out your imagined flaws. This is not philosophy, it is high school arguing.

Again, if you have anything logical, useful, or based on my actual position to discuss, I am here.