Can morality arise from natural selection?

[Prophet]

If by selfless you mean NOTHING matters, you are correct. You can not control a person who is completely apathetic. But selflessness is not as radical as apathy.

The enlightened mind values drastically different things from the egoic mind.

For example, I value the truth, while you value being right.

 

[Alex_G]

Perhaps.

My point is still obvious. Selflessness actually makes a person impossible to control, because there is nothing of value you can take from them or give away. Even threatening a selfless man's family which he loves dearly will not make a selfless man able to justify hurting others to spare his own loved ones.

It also applies to more than just politics.

If you want me to do something which I don't want to do, and I have reasoned myself into a position where I believe there is nothing you can give or take away from me of value, you will not move me.

Just to add my thoughts here, a man who is so disengaged that he does nothing to safeguard the lives of his innocent loved ones from someone with the clear intent to harm them doesn’t seem very moral to me. Even leaving action out of the equation, to not to feel anything, that strikes me as a bit scary. It just resonates the point that there isn’t much sense in taking the phrase 'be selfless' too literally. Just a turn of phrase to represent having a significant focus on helping and benefiting others.

Alex

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Laozi, Buddha, and Socrates all lived long lives. Jesus was only around a few years.

You don't understand anything you are talking about here.

There's a difference between egolessness and pure altruism, the latter being impossible for living beings.

 

[1137]

Laozi, Buddha, and Socrates all lived long lives. Jesus was only around a few years.

You don't understand anything you are talking about here.

The Buddha mediated, alone, for years so HE could reach enlightenment and HE could end HIS suffering. A person who is not materialistic is not selfless, but simply does not care about material things. You are using the wrong word. If a person does not care about themselves, or are apathetic to fit your argument, they will never do a single thing and die from starvation, dehydration, etc etc etc. Or do you eat because others are hungry, sleep because others are tired, defend yourself because others want to live?

 

[Prophet]

And to what end would you go to save your loved ones? Would you set off an atomic weapon in a crowded city if you knew it'd buy their freedom?

 

[1137]

There's a difference between egolessness and pure altruism, the latter being impossible for living beings.

Egoless. Perfect word I was looking for haha.

 

[Prophet]

The Buddha mediated, alone, for years so HE could reach enlightenment and HE could end HIS suffering. A person who is not materialistic is not selfless, but simply does not care about material things. You are using the wrong word. If a person does not care about themselves, or are apathetic to fit your argument, they will never do a single thing and die from starvation, dehydration, etc etc etc. Or do you eat because others are hungry, sleep because others are tired, defend yourself because others want to live?

And what of religious hypocrites who value the respect of their peers in church? They are often not materialistic, but their acts of goodness are only acts because they are selfishly attached. I do this and I get this respect. If I find that I've not bought the respect that I feel I deserve, I feel cheated.

You can be attached to all manner of thing.

 

[Prophet]

The way in which I speak, selflessness is the same as "egolessness" if that's a word.

 

[1137]

The enlightened mind values drastically different things from the egoic mind.

For example, I value the truth, while you value being right.

So very mature. Enlightenment comes from being egoless, which is a difficult thing. However, to go around publicly assuming you are enlightened is one of the most egotistical things possible. A non egotistical enlightened person would hardly go to this trouble to be right.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The Buddha mediated, alone, for years so HE could reach enlightenment and HE could end HIS suffering. A person who is not materialistic is not selfless, but simply does not care about material things. You are using the wrong word. If a person does not care about themselves, or are apathetic to fit your argument, they will never do a single thing and die from starvation, dehydration, etc etc etc. Or do you eat because others are hungry, sleep because others are tired, defend yourself because others want to live?

You could argue that they eat and sleep in order to help others, but that's only a glancing shot on the truth: you wouldn't even consider helping others unless it affected you in some way. Watching a starving child or someone being tortured causes a person pain, and in order to remove that pain they attempt to end the suffering of others. Altruism is the effect and selfishness is the cause.

 

[Alex_G]

And to what end would you go to save your loved ones? Would you set off an atomic weapon in a crowded city if you knew it'd buy their freedom?

Not sure if you were responding to me... But no i wouldn't do what you suggest, however i would feel every painful second of it.
Neither do i think that example has any bearing on what i actually said in the post above about not feeling personally connected to the world around you.

 

[1137]

You could argue that they eat and sleep in order to help others, but that's only a glancing shot on the truth: you wouldn't even consider helping others unless it affected you in some way. Watching a starving child or someone being tortured causes a person pain, and in order to remove that pain they attempt to end the suffering of others. Altruism is the effect and selfishness is the cause.

That is what I am saying, and I agree with it.

 

[Prophet]

The Buddha himself claimed enlightenment. Does that immediately make the Buddha arrogant? Jesus claimed to be a Son of God. Does that make Jesus arrogant. By the way, these claims are identical.

 

[Prophet]

Free yourself from attachment. - Buddha

 

[1137]

The Buddha himself claimed enlightenment. Does that immediately make the Buddha arrogant? Jesus claimed to be a Son of God. Does that make Jesus arrogant. By the way, these claims are identical.

There is a big difference between the Buddha and your arrogance here. If you seriously cannot realize that, I am at a loss. I couldn't care less about Christ, and he wasn't enlightened.

Free yourself from attachment. - Buddha

Not selflessness. But thank you for reinforcing you don't have any idea what you are saying.

 

[Prophet]

Not your version of selflessness you mean.

If it satisfies you, take every place where I have said selflessness and substitute egolessness or freedom from attachment. They all mean the same thing.

 

[1137]

Not your version of selflessness you mean.

If it satisfies you, take every place where I have said selflessness and substitute egolessness or freedom from attachment. They all mean the same thing.

They are different things.... Their meaning has nothing to do with feeling. You just used the wrong word. It's ok

 

[Iti oj]

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?

maybe its a side effect from consciousness.

 

[Prophet]

Doors: Very well, sir. I no longer wish to debate you.

 

[1137]

Doors: Very well, sir. I no longer wish to debate you.

Wonderful