why is it so difficult for some morons to accept that people can have a morality, even if its subjective?
i have a degree in genetics.
i wrote my dissertation on the evolution of morality - how and why many of the common moral intuitions are actually (selfish) fitness increasing survival tools.
morality then, was not bestowed upon us by an objective anything.
there is no objective truth to morality at all.
Apparantely then, to some morons (one in particular), this view necessitates that i ignore my moral sense.
"So wait… your saying the selfish and greedy will survive and evolve?"
im saying that morality is a roundabout way of being selfish (ultimately, and in terms of genes)
"Subjective morality is about as valid as subjective scientific knowledge."
well..thats why i dont call morality knowledge
"Your definition doesn't make sense in the spiritual realm of things"
yes, but only because no such realm exists
"Edit: I do accept that we are animals — I accept evolution. But we are not ONLY animals, we are also "human beings" capable of love that transcends our survival instinct… I believe this on faith. There is no scientific evidence that we are capable of love."
love is probably easier to explain evolutionarily than morality. the feeling that love is transcendental, is part of its evolutionary power. likewise for morality - we feel (subjectively) that morality is objective.
It sounds like you are in the top tenth of the top one percent of individuals (in terms of your simultaneous study of science and ethics.)
It could be argued that your world view "calls out for faith." If we are just animals, grasping for survival and power, then life is sort of "meaningless" and love is not "real." Faith would be the only alternative to a robot-like existence (despair.)
Edit: I do accept that we are animals — I accept evolution. But we are not ONLY animals, we are also "human beings" capable of love that transcends our survival instinct… I believe this on faith. There is no scientific evidence that we are capable of love.
SECOND EDIT: Hey, "Skepisky" — atheism is not a problem for me, I totally understand where you're coming from. It's also clear to me that, in a purely "evolutionary" world, our identities have no, well, soul…
Most non-believers don't really examine their experience of themselves and others. They sort of vaguely accept Christian ideas (about the beauty of the individual personality, the integrity of the individual, love, non-violence, cooperation, etc.) and mostly just feel relieved that they don't have to listen to implausible ideas coming from a religious authority figure.
***************************************************
THIRD EDIT: Pingu, I understand completely. However, life is meaningless, to me, if I view the "transcendental" nature of love as an illusion that's simply another adaptation to help us reproduce… Instead, I CHOOSE to view love in a Christian way, as something that is really and truly transcendental. Because it is a blind choice for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence, it is a matter of faith, not science.
April 4th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
It sounds like you are in the top tenth of the top one percent of individuals (in terms of your simultaneous study of science and ethics.)
It could be argued that your world view "calls out for faith." If we are just animals, grasping for survival and power, then life is sort of "meaningless" and love is not "real." Faith would be the only alternative to a robot-like existence (despair.)
Edit: I do accept that we are animals — I accept evolution. But we are not ONLY animals, we are also "human beings" capable of love that transcends our survival instinct… I believe this on faith. There is no scientific evidence that we are capable of love.
SECOND EDIT: Hey, "Skepisky" — atheism is not a problem for me, I totally understand where you're coming from. It's also clear to me that, in a purely "evolutionary" world, our identities have no, well, soul…
Most non-believers don't really examine their experience of themselves and others. They sort of vaguely accept Christian ideas (about the beauty of the individual personality, the integrity of the individual, love, non-violence, cooperation, etc.) and mostly just feel relieved that they don't have to listen to implausible ideas coming from a religious authority figure.
***************************************************
THIRD EDIT: Pingu, I understand completely. However, life is meaningless, to me, if I view the "transcendental" nature of love as an illusion that's simply another adaptation to help us reproduce… Instead, I CHOOSE to view love in a Christian way, as something that is really and truly transcendental. Because it is a blind choice for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence, it is a matter of faith, not science.
References :
Catholic
April 4th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
So wait… your saying the selfish and greedy will survive and evolve?
I wonder what mankind is going to become, already we praise and admire people who are superficially charming and cold
*edit
It is one of the things churches cling to and preach: that without religion we would be immoral but that just isn't true. I went to church as a kid and I can tell you I learned morality and justice in the school yard not in sunday school.
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
There are a lot of people who honestly believe that without religion, one cannot have morals. But don't take it personally or hold it against them, that's just what some churches are teaching nowadays. -_-
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
You answered the question yourself. Morons are called morons for a reason.
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
It doesn't mean you have no moral sense it means that your moral sense is not a product of an atheistic dogma. If your morality is a part of your evolutionary dogma then it forms a basis for it. Then, as you stated, it's merely a survival tool, and when it comes down to it you are left to the morality of survival of the fittest, natural selection, and pack mentality. Please enlighten me if there are other evolutionary tools that influence morality since you have studied the subject in particular.
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Subjective morality is about as valid as subjective scientific knowledge. Good thing you didn't approach genetics the same way you approach morality.
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Well even this moron can see that your subjective definition of morality and mine can be different or wen completely opposite. If that is the Case, how can it be defined at we? And if it can't even be defined I'd say your dissertations is pointless.
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Morals, like dinosaur bones and evidence of evolution, was put here to confuse us by the invisible power that rules all. All we can do to make a difference is become a pirate.
Piracy is therefore the only objective morality. For the proof of this postulate, please see above.
References :
Be touched by his noodly appendage.
April 4th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Finally, someone who acknowledges that people are selfish! I was beginning to believe that everyone goes around pretending that other people's happiness is more important to them than their own. Morality and justice are simply expressions of usefulness, pledges of reciprocal benefit, if you will. They're based on the simple fact that creating an environment that is conducive to happiness is in one's best interest. No magic involved…
Since when is meaningless life robotic? Life is exciting when you don't know what's around the corner. You create your own meaning. A robotic life, to me at least, is one in which a template for living is handed to you on a silver platter…
I still don't see how humanity is more civilized now if people can't figure this out. Epicurus came to this understanding in ancient Greece, during a time period that most modern people consider barbaric. The same people who, ironically, simply cannot comprehend a set of morals based on logic, instead of "God said so" or "Mom and Dad said so" or "Uncle Sam said so". The number of people still stuck in the lower tiers of Kohlberg's moral hierarchy are astounding…
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Your definition doesn't make sense in the spiritual realm of things. Selfishness is the curse of the universe. It destroys rather than creates. Therefore, it leads to death, not life.
Morality is divine law, the rules and principles for life and existence. Deny morality and you invite trouble. Heck, 40 million people in the world aren't exactly HIV + because they behaved morally. If you see the world as strictly biological, then I can see why you have come to your conclusions. But man is capabale of a higher thinking and existence, and you're not going to find that worshiping the ideas of Darwin et al.
References :
April 4th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I'm sure you know that most everyone can feel threatened when their beliefs are called into question.
By saying morality is not of divine doctrine, it can be considered an attack on everything down to their sense of purpose and being.
It is an interesting idea that morals, among other things, can be a survival mechanism. It is something that I have thought about, seeing as a "moral" species is more likely to survive than one that practices killing each other or whatever.
I am not religious in any way but I have a strong set of morals and adhere to a self-made honor system. There is no rhyme or reason to it other than it seems right. And I just do what seems right based on subjective data about the circumstances of the situation along with information gathered from previous experiences aligned with assumptions of the social norm.
Sorry about your moron.
References :