Simply see it this way... we evolved a survival instinct so survive good die bad. A synonym for moral is good, a synonym for immoral is bad. Cause survival good/moral. Cause death bad/immoral (murder).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution is not observable admits Jerry Coyne
- Thread starter *blank*
- Start date
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
Except we have to kill other organisms to survive.
That survival is good applies of course to all organisms with a survival instinct. It's good and moral for a crocodile to kill and eat us too to survive.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Usually this only expands to our species. In fact the tribal mechanisms in our brains usually limit that to whom we consider part of our tribe. It is considered moral to kill an enemy tribesman but it is immoral to kill a fellow tribesman. It is only immoral to harm "us" or the "group". .
Because he threatens the survivability of our group.
Not necessarily it depends on whether he is a danger to our group or the individuals in it and whether he is of more use alive than dead.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Indeed. That is the functional portion.
To simply up and murder a fellow tribesman would be immoral. But there are punishments for those that put the tribe in danger or betray the tribe. Execution has been the word we usually use in modern English to replace the word murder because of the different implications.
Sure. It would also be immoral to simply up and murder a member of another tribe.
No, execution doesn't replace the word "murder". Murder is defined as "unlawful killing" execution if done by the state is "lawful killing" so to speak.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Ah the old semantics debates. If I stab someone in the heart and it is frowned upon because I killed him for the sheer joy of seeing the blood run down into the ground and he was a member of my tribe then I have committed murder. If someone stabbed me in the same way as punishment for my actions with the acceptance of the tribe then they have executed me. Nothing is different about the two actions except for reasons and acceptance. IT is not murder to execute someone and it is not execution to murder someone. But this brings us so far away from the original debate on an obviously silly semantic tangent.
No, "it is frowned upon because" you have reduced the survivability of the tribe and the rest of the individuals in it by removing a member who might have proved valuable to the survival of the tribe in the future.
They didn't stab you in "punishment". They stabbed you to prevent you from repeating your actions and thereby further reducing the survivability of the tribe.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
Is there anything you really want to debate here?
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
I rather just drop the word "moral" all together. I'm fine with the words good and bad though. It's more technical. It's a good thing for the crocodile to kill a human for food.... good for the crocodile that is. It's not good for the human. It's bad when a volcano destroys a neighboring village. Bad for the village that is. It's interesting to note though that, because a volcano isn't a living thing with a value system, no one would ever consider the volcano as immoral.
Killing another tribe member is bad.... for the other tribe. Your tribe might benefit from it though. Might. Or there could be repercussions.
We say that a human being who shares food with the starving is a moral person doing the right thing. Is a vampire bat doing the exact same thing moral?
The safest thing must be to refrain from doing something detrimental to other people until absolutely necessary for self defense or in defense of others.
Sure. What did you have in mind? Except what you brought up in post number 644 which I have been commenting on?
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
Well like I said, I don't prefer to use the word moral. A human sharing food is good and beneficial to the other human being. It could be good for the human being who's being generous too. It could help build a bond and companionship between the two and it can promote piece. Or the other human could take advantage of his kindness.
I'd say a similar thing for the bat too.
See, I like how you used the word "safest". It's much more technical and better describes the mechanics of human interaction when it comes to these things.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
What you have commented on is almost purely semantics which I find boring. The key aspect of the evolution of morality is the distinction of the social order of a tribe as well as what threatens that tribe as if were an extension of one's own life. Even going so far as the desire for revenge and punishment finds its roots in this. You claimed it wasn't for "punishment" and I would disagree. The death penalty or any other penalty for a wrong-doer within a tribe serves a dual purpose. The first and lesser of the two purposes is the removal of a potential threat to the survival of the tribe. The second and far more important within the social structure is the deterrent for others. This understanding of what happens to those that "murder" or do other crimes against the tribe keeps people in line. Morality itself often isn't enough so we have a second level that comes in to assist which is bore out of anger and resentment we feel towards those that have wronged us.
Do you have a non-semantic discussion in mind?
Shad
Veteran Member
Have you considered that they could be using hate against the out-group and love for the in-group?
I wonder what "expression of emotion with free will" is supposed to mean.
Shad
Veteran Member
I assume it means that an emotion leads to a choice. For example say a piece of art has an emotional effect on you thus leading to a choice, in this case a judgment regarding the piece of art.
Sorry, I don't see any connection. If I find a painting beautiful I don't see where choosing and free will comes in. I don't choose to find it beautiful and it's not as if I have free will so I could find it ugly instead using free will.
Shad
Veteran Member
I was just assuming the point based on how he links free will, emotions and subjectivity together for his arguments. The emotion is not finding something beautiful as that is a judgment. The emotion I am talking about is if a painting triggered an emotion like say sadness. Based on this emotion one makes a judgement of the painting which would be a choice. It need not be beautiful. The sadness could be that the painting is horrible in which the choice could be the state of what people consider art.
An emotional response leads to a judgement (just removing specific emotions and judgements)