The evolutionary basis for morality is something that has been studied and explained in evolutionary psychology. It is something that is now embedded in moral philosophy.

I made this thread to address the denial of facts by certain christians. This is the arrogance of ignorance that stems from religion. The inability to accept facts that are outside of one's religion. You can follow this thread to see what I am talking about
https://www.nairaland.com/1097131/strategies-dialoguing-atheists/2#12906664


That being said, there are christians who do accept evoloution and the evolutionary basis for morality- these are the people I respect and this thread is not for them

*******************************



Now, unto the evolutionary basis for morality, I dont want it to be a long thread about moral philosophy and so I will give a short summary of the topic and I will leave links for those who seek knowledge to read.


First off, in moral philosophy there are 4 functional areas;

Descriptive ethics: What do people think is right?
Normative (prescriptive) ethics: How should people act?
Applied ethics: How do we take moral knowledge and put it into practice?
Meta-ethics: What does 'right' even mean?



The evolutionary basis for morality is quite objective in the descriptive morality or ethics. Evolutionary ethics is quite problematic in the normaitve or prescriptive morality because that would be trying to use evolution alone as a basis to determine human behaviour. The equivalent of using religion as a basis of justifying an ethical system.


The descriptive ethics in evolution focuses on "what is". It is the use of the theory of evolution to explain certain identified patterns and actions in human behaviour.


****************************

Summary of the Evolutionary basis for evolution

We humans as social animals have evolved certain basic instincts that enable us to survive and adapt to the environment and society. Some of these basic instincts function as a basic morality which we then hone with logic and societal interactions.


A practical example would be the care of a mother to her baby. This is a natural instinct many animals and humans as well have evolved with to protect their young ones from predators and a harsh environment for the future of the species. Carrying that to the modern day, we use better technology to aid us in child care, we use breat pumps and bottles to extract and store breast milk for our babies. We as rational human beings use what we good things we have learnt from years of taking care of children to come up with books on childcare.


Another example would be survival. Naturally, our survival is our basic animalistic instinct. We avoid predators and haards that would kill us. Instinctively, a dog would recoil at the sight of fire or a mouse would recoil at the sight of a predator. We also kill other to survive. We kill agressors and predators or we kill prey to eat. We frame many decisions around our survival. We dont do certain things because it will kill us on the lond eg drug overdose or addiction.


Another example would be murder. While it is a natural instincts to kill competitors or aggressors, natural selection favours groups which share and are cohisve. Natural selection favours sharers and co-operation within groups or society. In groups, animals can kill more prey and ward off predators. Natural selection suppiorts those groups who work together for the benefits of the group.


Now, the confusion arises with many religionists, where they say that natural can not explain everything about morality. Of course. We also have brains that are capable of reasoning with logic that moves us beyond our primal instincts and basic morality. That is the whole point; we have a basic morality which comes prepackaged but we have brains and reasoning that helps us move beyond out primal instincts.


There is another issue of social moral evolution, where societies' morality changes with time due to technological, politcal and environental factors but that is another topic.


Here are links for further reading;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxP_XPMqPsI&feature=related

You'll habe to state how morality evolves. It is not just enough to say it evolves without a summary of how it is done. Note that morality is not tangible, it is an abstract. As for your talk about natural selection favouring groups that share I would say it is one-sided. There are many animals which kill themselves or their young yet natural selection still favours them eg catfish. That said many of your examples already assume morality without telling us how the brain developed it.

Uyi Iredia: You'll habe to state how morality evolves. It is not just enough to say it evolves without a summary of how it is done. Note that morality is not tangible, it is an abstract. As for your talk about natural selection favouring groups that share I would say it is one-sided. There are many animals which kill themselves or their young yet natural selection still favours them eg catfish. That said many of your examples already assume morality without telling us how the brain developed it.

Seriously, you have a serious problem of comprehension for you to even ask the bold. What was the point of the whole thread? I even gave examples of how our natural instincts we get from surviving in the environment serves as a basic morality which we then hone with logical reasoning.





You didnt even read and comprehend what I wrote. You just saw "evolution" and typed the most ridiculous thing you could say against the thread. You have problems

Logicboy03:
Seriously, you have a serious problem of comprehension for you to even ask the bold. What was the point of the whole thread? I even gave examples of how our natural instincts we get from surviving in the environment serves as a basic morality which we then hone with logical reasoning.





You didnt even read and comprehend what I wrote. You just saw "evolution" and typed the most ridiculous thing you could say against the thread. You have problems

I already knew that which is why I tackled one of your examples and pointed out that you assume morality without telling us how the brain developed it. The bolded is an example of how you assume morality. You just said that natural instincts serve as morality without giving an explanation as to how it does.

Uyi Iredia:

I already knew that which is why I tackled one of your examples and pointed out that you assume morality without telling us how the brain developed it. The bolded is an example of how you assume morality. You just said that natural instincts serve as morality without giving an explanation as to how it does.

You didnt read the article I wrote. Fool

Foolish troll. Did you miss the part where I said that survival is our basic natural instinct? We shape many decisions around our survival. Please, read the damn article and stop asking questions that have been answered.

Logicboy03:


You didnt read the article I wrote. Fool

Foolish troll. Did you miss the part where I said that survival is our basic natural instinct? We shape many decisions around our survival. Please, read the damn article and stop asking questions that have been answered.

The Logicboy Guide for Conducting Discourse Rule 1: When a question is thrown at you, throw an insult back

Guys, let be civil here. We can debate intelligently without insults, especially when its un-called for. At least we see how how world class debaters like Hitchens, Craig, Harris, Dinesh et al fiercely debate with each other without insults

Uyi Iredia:

I already knew that which is why I tackled one of your examples and pointed out that you assume morality without telling us how the brain developed it. The bolded is an example of how you assume morality. You just said that natural instincts serve as morality without giving an explanation as to how it does.

Very good question. He just assumes that somehow human life is sacred forgetting that the same nature that makes drives one animal to protect it's young, drives another to kill it's young.

The question that comes before arguing that preserving human well being is morally good is "Why should human life be sacred in the first place?" Nature cannot tell you this because nature does not give any importance to human life or any other life for that matter.

Nature/Evolution does not qualify in any way as a basis for morality.

Mr_Anony:
The Logicboy Guide for Conducting Discourse Rule 1: When a question is thrown at you, throw an insult back

Please, could you leave my thread and any thread I open?

I told you that I am not debating anything with you. I have every reason to call a foolish troll a troll. People who dont read the OP and then argue on a question that is solved

Mr_Anony:

Very good question. He just assumes that somehow human life is sacred forgetting that the same nature that makes drives one animal to protect it's young, drives another to kill it's young.

The question that comes before arguing that preserving human well being is morally good is "Why should human life be sacred in the first place?" Nature cannot tell you this because nature does not give any importance to human life or any other life for that matter.

Nature/Evolution does not qualify in any way as a basis for morality.

I have no choice but to grudgingly answer your deceitful tactics


1) No where did I say that human life is sacred. You just lie and play straw men. I hate your tactics.

2) It is not that human life is sacred, it is our basic instinct to survive. That is the nature of any living thing. Survival. We shape many decisions around our
survival

3) Your argument about mothers killing their babies is well documented in evolutionary psychology and it is based on survival. You are just ignorant as usual. This is why I dont debate you. You annoyingly argue from ignorance.

4) It is a natural instinct to protect ones young for the survival of ones kin. Now if the mother senses that the child can not survive or is detrimental to her health, it kills it. That is why I said that our primal instincts are our basic morality which we hone through reasoning. We use our brain to bypass such basic morality.

Evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology have proposed several theories for different forms of infanticide. Infanticide by stepfathers, as well as child abuse in general by stepfathers, has been explained by spending resources on not genetically related children reducing reproductive success (See the Cinderella effect and Infanticide (zoology)). Infanticide is one of the few forms of violence more often done by women than men. Cross-cultural research have found that this is more likely to occur when the child has deformities or illnesses as well as when there are lacking resources due to factors such as poverty, other children requiring resources, and no male support. Such a child may have a low chance of reproductive success in which case it would decrease the mother's inclusive fitness, in particular since women generally have a greater parental investment than men, to spend resources on the child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Evolutionary_psychology











Please leave my thread

cyrexx: Guys, let be civil here. We can debate intelligently without insults, especially when its un-called for. At least we see how how world class debaters like Hitchens, Craig, Harris, Dinesh et al fiercely debate with each other without insults

Civil? Do formal debaters ask questions about what has been clearly answered? Do formal debaters troll with ignorance?


I can understand your plight but it is not easy dealing with people like these. You write and answer their problems with understanding evolution and morality, only for them to close their eyes to the write up and play straw men.

Funny how many christians have viewed this thread but failed to comment....................



A wise man is not cowed by knowledge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCovYF51qHE&feature=related

Logicboy03:


Please, could you leave my thread and any thread I open?

I told you that I am not debating anything with you. I have every reason to call a foolish troll a troll. People who dont read the OP and then argue on a question that is solved

Translation: I get my kicks from insulting people. Please allow me to indulge in my vice

Mr_Anony:
Translation: I get my kicks from insulting people. Please allow me to indulge in my vice

Thanks for the Anonyism (Remixing and mistranslating to set up straw men). Kindly find your way out

Logicboy03:


I have no choice but to grudgingly answer your deceitful tactics


1) No where did I say that human life is sacred. You just lie and play straw men. I hate your tactics.

So human life is not sacred but of little worth then? I thought the whole argument about human wellbeing would depend on human life having value? If human life is worthless, what then is the point of treating it well? Wow sorry I miunderstood you. Your argument just became more pointless in my eyes.

2) It is not that human life is sacred, it is our basic instinct to survive. That is the nature of any living thing. Survival. We shape many decisions around our
survival

Is human life sacred? yes or no? because if it is not then the human being is not worth more than ant or a cockroach or a tomato; they also try to survive but their survival or deaths are neither good nor evil. They are of little importance. As I said the first question you must tackle before arguing about morality is: "What is the value of human life?" You must settle that first

3) Your argument about mothers killing their babies is well documented in evolutionary psychology and it is based on survival. You are just ignorant as usual. This is why I dont debate you. You annoyingly argue from ignorance.

Of course it is well documented. What exactly is wrong with the argument I put forward?

4) It is a natural instinct to protect ones young for the survival of ones kin. Now if the mother senses that the child can not survive or is detrimental to her health, it kills it. That is why I said that our primal instincts are our basic morality which we hone through reasoning. We use our brain to bypass such basic morality.

Really? So sharks that eat their children eat them because if they don't they won't survive? Wow.

Please leave my thread

Why are you winking at me?

Logicboy03: Funny how many christians have viewed this thread but failed to comment....................



A wise man is not cowed by knowledge

Lol, While trying so hard to avoid the christian willing to engage him..........Oh the hypocrisy.

Anyway, have it your way. I'm out

Mr_Anony:
So human life is not sacred but of little worth then? I thought the whole argument about human wellbeing would depend on human life having value? If human life is worthless, what then is the point of treating it well? Wow sorry I miunderstood you. Your argument just became more pointless in my eyes.

Is human life sacred? yes or no? because if it is not then the human being is not worth more than ant or a cockroach or a tomato; they also try to survive but their survival or deaths are neither good nor evil. They are of little importance. As I said the first question you must tackle before arguing about morality is: "What is the value of human life?" You must settle that first


Of course it is well documented. What exactly is wrong with the argument I put forward?

Really? So sharks that eat their children eat them because if they don't they won't survive? Wow.



Why are you winking at me?

Sacred is not the same thing as having value. See how Anony just remixes things?

You couldnt debate my point on infanticide and then went on to ignorantly mention sharks. It is not infanticide in the case of sharks

Intrauterine cannibalism

Main article: Oophagy
Intrauterine cannibalism is a behaviour in some carnivorous species, in which multiple embryos are created at impregnation, but only one or two are born. The larger or stronger ones consume their less-developed siblings as a source of nutrients.
In adelphophagy, the fetus eats sibling embryos, while in oophagy it feeds on eggs.[22][23]
Intrauterine cannibalism is known to occur in lamnoid sharks[24] and in the Fire Salamander,[25] as well as in some teleost fishes.[23] The Carboniferous period chimaera, Delphyodontos dacriformes, is suspected of having practiced intrauterine cannibalism, also, due to the sharp teeth of the recently born (or possibly aborted) juveniles (adults are unknown), and the presence of fecal matter in the juveniles' intestines

Mr_Anony:
Lol, While trying so hard to avoid the christian willing to engage him..........Oh the hypocrisy.

Anyway, have it your way. I'm out

Good riddance. I will debate any christian. Not just you

Logicboy03:


Sacred is not the same thing as having value. See how Anony just remixes things?

Lol really? What then is sacred if not something that must be treated with high respect and must not be violated in other words something that has very high value? If you disagree, then you must either hold that human life is worthless or else you will have to give human life a definite value and be prepared to defend why that value is appropriate.

You couldnt debate my point on infanticide and then went on to ignorantly mention sharks. It is not infanticide in the case of sharks

I never mentioned infanticide. I talked about mothers killing their young. Please read my posts well and understand them before crying foul and hurling insults. Stick to the point I am making ok.

......And yeah, you know what, forget what I said earlier, I'm back. As long as you keep replying without proper reasoning, I will defend myself within reason.

Seems we were made for each other then. Because I too will not let you use your deceitful tactics on my thread

Mr_Anony:
Lol really? What then is sacred if not something that must be treated with high respect and must not be violated in other words something that has very high value? If you disagree, then you must either hold that human life is worthless or else you will have to give human life a definite value and be prepared to defend why that value is appropriate.

You keep on remixing till you end up saying nonsense. "Sacred" and "having value" are two very different things. My shoe has value but it is not sacred. Human life has value but it is not sacred. You use the word "sacred" so that you can sneak in god through the backdoor.

Everything that exists has value because it is not a "zero". Furthermore, human life is of value to the human. Same as all sentient life is of value to the sentient being. Why dont you kill yourself? Simple because we all want to experience life. Survival is the first point of morality or instinct of any lliving thing.


Now explain how this value defeats evolutionary morality again?

Mr_Anony:
I never mentioned infanticide.


I talked about mothers killing their young. Please read my posts well and understand them before crying foul and hurling insults. Stick to the point I am making ok.

......And yeah, you know what, forget what I said earlier, I'm back. As long as you keep replying without proper reasoning, I will defend myself within reason.

Mothers killing their young is what? Can you see the ironic statement you made in bold?

Mothers killing young = infanticide


This is where I shout EPIC FAIL

Logicboy03: Seems we were made for each other then. Because I too will not let you use your deceitful tactics on my thread





You keep on remixing till you end up saying nonsense. "Sacred" and "having value" are two very different things. My shoe has value but it is not sacred. Human life has value but it is not sacred. You use the word "sacred" so that you can sneak in god through the backdoor.

Everything that exists has value because it is not a "zero". Furthermore, human life is of value to the human. Same as all sentient life is of value to the sentient being. Why dont you kill yourself? Simple because we all want to experience life. Survival is the first point of morality or instinct of any lliving thing.


Now explain how this value defeats evolutionary morality again?

By using the word sacred, I was trying to point out that human life is of very high value. stop being disingenuous. If you said "my shoe is sacred" I immediately know that your shoe is of utmost importance to you and not to be played with.
If you hold that human life does not have this very high value, then please define for us exactly what level of value human life has.

Mothers killing their young is what? Can you see the ironic statement you made in bold?

Mothers killing young = infanticide


This is where I shout EPIC FAIL

Lol, Nonsense: Special pleading while playing on semantics . . . . .So the shark that that kills her young for some special reason doesn't fall under your definition of infanticide abi?

Lol, keep dancing around. You have started biting your own tail

Mr_Anony:
By using the word sacred, I was trying to point out that human life is of very high value. stop being disingenuous. If you said "my shoe is sacred" I immediately know that your shoe is of utmost importance to you and not to be played with.
If you hold that human life does not have this very high value, then please define for us exactly what level of value human life has.

Lol.........Higher value? Where did this higher value come from? You are the one to define your useless term. Dont aks me to define nonsense that you just pulled out of your behind.

Human life has value because humans exist, it is more than a non-existent nothing.


Your use of "sacred" here is meaniningless. Sacred to whom? What is this higher value?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, Nonsense: Special pleading using semantics . . . . .So the shark that that kills her young for some special reason doesn't fall under your definition of infanticide abi?

Lol, keep dancing around. You have started biting your own tail

First off, you were contradicting yourself by denying that you werent talking about infanticide but talking about females killing their offspring.

From my knowledge, female sharks (rather the young) engage in intrauterine cannibalism not in infanticide naturally. You want to shift it to a "special case" of infanticide now. Infanticide by mothers is more common in other animals than sharks eg lions and rats



Infanticide is clearly explained in evolutionary psychology. So what is your point now because you seem to have none?

#Sights thread
#screams ''epic fail''
#packs load on head and vamooses before someone calls me a moose#

inurmind: #Sights thread
#screams ''epic fail''
#packs load on head and vamooses before someone calls me a moose#

Was this meant to be funny?

Logicboy03:

Lol.........Higher value? Where did this higher value come from? You are the one to define your useless term. Dont aks me to define nonsense that you just pulled out of your behind.

Human life has value because humans exist, it is more than a non-existent nothing.


Your use of "sacred" here is meaniningless. Sacred to whom? What is this higher value?

Oh simple we are made in God's image. That's where our value comes from. Where does the value of your life come from or is there any value at all?

First off, you were contradicting yourself by denying that you werent talking about infanticide but talking about females killing their offspring.

From my knowledge, female sharks (rather the young) engage in intrauterine cannibalism not in infanticide naturally. You want to shift it to a "special case" of infanticide now. Infanticide by mothers is more common in other animals than sharks eg lions and rats



Infanticide is clearly explained in evolutionary psychology. So what is your point now because you seem to have none?

I was talking about infanticide but I never used the word itself. You tried to claim that somehow sharks killing their young is not infanticide. I reminded you that I specifically said "animals killing their young" then suddenly you switched the meaning back to infanticide so I pointed out to you that you were engaging in special pleading.

The cheap attempt to make it seem like I am contradicting myself is not working. It is either shark mothers kill their young or they don't. I say they do. What say you?

And the more important question.....What makes nature the basis of morality if on the one hand some animals kill their young and on the other hand, some animal care for their young?

Mr_Anony:
Oh simple we are made in God's image. That's where our value comes from. Where does the value of your life come from or is there any value at all?

We get value from a god that

-you can not prove
-you are confused about (Is Jesus god or is Jesus man?)
-endorses slavery in the old testament
-commits genocide
-is jealous

Furthermore, which god? Allah, Zeus, Shiva?


You are seriously deluded. You choose to ground your values on something that you cant prove or even give empirical evidence for. Wouldnt it be a better and more logical thing to acknowledge that human life has value because of the need for survival. It has value because we want to live. Our decisions are centered around our survival. Life in itself holds value to the living that lives it because death in itself is the nullification of experiencing the life.

There has been empirical evidence and and tudies on the issue of survival and animal behaviour. Something tangible and scientific to this morality, yet you choose the immaterial and possible non-existent to ground your values in.

Mr_Anony:
I was talking about infanticide but I never used the word itself. You tried to claim that somehow sharks killing their young is not infanticide. I reminded you that I specifically said "animals killing their young" then suddenly you switched the meaning back to infanticide so I pointed out to you that you were engaging in special pleading.

The cheap attempt to make it seem like I am contradicting myself is not working. It is either shark mothers kill their young or they don't. I say they do. What say you?

And the more important question.....What makes nature the basis of morality if on the one hand some animals kill their young and on the other hand, some animal care for their young? ~

Fail. All I claimed was that sharks engage in cannibalism more commonly not infanticide. For you to mention sharks with infanticide means that you were ignorant of this fact

You, on the other hand were contradicting yourself. But that is another story



The focus here is infanticide and evolution. You have no point. The evolutionary reason for infanticide is of two fold.


1) A mother kills babies that are deformed or have less chance of survival to focus on the ones who are fit. (Morality/instincts from survival)

2) An adult kills a baby to eat. Eating, feeding to survive. (Morality from survival)


So I have shown you the evolutionary basis for infanticide (survival of the mom and more viable offspring) and caring for offspring (survival of the offspring). I fail to see what your problem is.

Logicboy03:


Was this meant to be funny?

Actually it was meant to be fact. I just don't think this was ur strongest of arguments.
I'm no jimmy neutron but I like to be fair irrespective of whose basic principles I side, a good definition of maturity if u ask me.
I think theists got u on this one.

inurmind:

Actually it was meant to be fact. I just don't think this was ur strongest of arguments.
I'm no jimmy neutron but I like to be fair irrespective of whose basic principles I side, a good definition of maturity if u ask me.
I think theists got u on this one.

Well I am not surprised. There are atheists who dont understand science.

inurmind:

Actually it was meant to be fact. I just don't think this was ur strongest of arguments.
I'm no jimmy neutron but I like to be fair irrespective of whose basic principles I side, a good definition of maturity if u ask me.
I think theists got u on this one.

So, you side with the theists (Anony) who say that morality comes from a god that they can not prove and that committed atrocities like slavery (Slavery, which Anony doesnt deny).


But you think that my argument based on biological research and studies on evolutuion and the behaviour of animals is an epic fail. Something that is backed by biology. Morality that comes from our basic instinct to survive is an epic fail?



Well, I agree, you are mature in making the wrong decision here