ooman:

Evolution does not occur in individuals but in the whole population. A whole population become extinct or become built by natural selection of survival traits.

Apply the thought process used in the above to humans and Apes...

Deep Sight:

This does not address the question, it evades the questions.

That we are highly developed animals and have found more efficient ways of surviving does not address the morality or otherwise of our primitive ways (which, by the way, are evidently still in existence given the state of the world).

The question is if any of the acts cited can be objectively described as immoral from the Atheistic world-view.

If I am simply a more intelligent animal than other animals, why is it wrong for me to use that intelligence to kill, oppress, seize and generally garner advantages for myself within the competitive and predatory environment in which we live.

Why would it be wrong for me to use my high intelligence to steal food and resources from others? Is this not survival? An animal surviving through its skills and abilities, no? Is this not what occurs in nature and indeed in human society continuously?

If Lions evolved further to a stage where they could farm meat from the soil, would it then become immoral for Lions to kill and eat other creatures for meat? You need to think carefully on this; for you suggest that the bigger brain and better methods suddenly mean that there is a moral wrong in applying more primitive methods of survival.

I am a Lion. Lions kill and take over other Lion Families. Now, as human, I am a more intelligent form. What's wrong with using that greater intelligence to selfishly advance my personal desires? What makes that morally wrong?

If anything, since I am a highly intelligent animal, you, my fellow man, had better wise up and become smarter than me, otherwise, it is legitimate for me to use my smarts to conquer you, seize your goods, family, wife and all - since this is what obtains in the natural world, no? What makes such an approach morally wrong for a highly developed animal?

In nature, might is indeed right! From the atheistic PoV, how is man excluded from nature?

If you will ponder carefully, you will see that in fact, this is what has been going on throughout human history - Might, and not right!

What is morally wrong with that, when this is the obvious way of nature?

Even if might were right, it's still logical to be moral

Within human society specifically, every other being in competition with you is a being like you, so they can strike back if you strike them. If you go about blindly using might, there's a good chance someone will strike you back. You have to be careful, and hence the need for moral codes, to protect our individual and collective interests. For instance, if eating people becomes acceptable, you might become the next item on the menu.

We won the genetic lottery, we've surpassed the rest of nature. We are the only ones capable of reason on this level, to arrive at simple truths like the above. We are the only ones capable of eschewing nature's usual modus operandi. We are capable of laying down a purposeful, intelligent and more efficient way to achieve our goals, as opposed to nature's usually capricious whims, so why not use this ability? It's in our best interest, both individually and collectively.

Deep Sight:

This does not address the question, it evades the questions.

That we are highly developed animals and have found more efficient ways of surviving does not address the morality or otherwise of our primitive ways (which, by the way, are evidently still in existence given the state of the world).

The question is if any of the acts cited can be objectively described as immoral from the Atheistic world-view.

If I am simply a more intelligent animal than other animals, why is it wrong for me to use that intelligence to kill, oppress, seize and generally garner advantages for myself within the competitive and predatory environment in which we live.

Why would it be wrong for me to use my high intelligence to steal food and resources from others? Is this not survival? An animal surviving through its skills and abilities, no? Is this not what occurs in nature and indeed in human society continuously?

If Lions evolved further to a stage where they could farm meat from the soil, would it then become immoral for Lions to kill and eat other creatures for meat? You need to think carefully on this; for you suggest that the bigger brain and better methods suddenly mean that there is a moral wrong in applying more primitive methods of survival.

I am a Lion. Lions kill and take over other Lion Families. Now, as human, I am a more intelligent form. What's wrong with using that greater intelligence to selfishly advance my personal desires? What makes that morally wrong?

If anything, since I am a highly intelligent animal, you, my fellow man, had better wise up and become smarter than me, otherwise, it is legitimate for me to use my smarts to conquer you, seize your goods, family, wife and all - since this is what obtains in the natural world, no? What makes such an approach morally wrong for a highly developed animal?

In nature, might is indeed right! From the atheistic PoV, how is man excluded from nature?

If you will ponder carefully, you will see that in fact, this is what has been going on throughout human history - Might, and not right!

What is morally wrong with that, when this is the obvious way of nature?

Even if might were right, it's still logical to be moral

Within human society specifically, every other being in competition with you is a being like you, so they can strike back if you strike them. If you go about blindly exposing might, there's a good chance someone will strike you back. You have to be careful, and hence the need for moral codes, to protect our individual and collective interests. For instance, if eating people becomes acceptable, you might become the next item on the menu.

We won the genetic lottery, we've surpassed the rest of nature. We are the only ones capable of reason on this level, to arrive at simple truths like the above. We are the only ones capable of eschewing nature's usual modus operandi. We are capable of laying down a purposeful, intelligent and more efficient way to achieve our goals, as opposed to nature's usually capricious whims, so why not use this ability? It's in our best interest, both individually and collectively.

If i may ask 'What do world religion tell us as the explanation of Animals commiting murder and sucide'

striktlymi:

Apply the thought process used in the above to humans and Apes...

Apply even simpler thought processes to populations separated over (a great deal of time)time.

Deep Sight:

You miss the point, kind sir. No one has said that survival of the fittest means intra-species war (although in human history it often has, and still does). What is asked, rather, is simply if the act or acts of taking lives are thereby morally wrong?

The acts of taking life are morally wrong. We run in the face of morality to survive.

Deepsight: . . . And therefore is not morally wrong? No?

never said that

Deepsight: Why should I be concerned about the survival of my species, and not simply about the survival of myself and my family and those I choose to be concerned about. If anything, I could argue that my species have been very bad for the health of the earth (extinctions, global warming, the threat of nuclear warfare, etc) and seek to decimate them and live in primitiveness with myself and my family. Why is that morally wrong?

You obviously don't know the effect of what is called bottleneck effect. If your species becomes decimated, the species will lose variations that makes it survive as a species. Extinction is certain. Man has caused the extinction of over 35% of animals this way. If you do that to your kind. You will all sooner or later die, extincting your kind.

Deepsight: You need to address yourself to the question: why is it morally wrong to kill your fellow man? If we live in a competitive world, and are merely highly developed animals, there surely is no moral wrong in conquering your fellow man to survive, and in fact this happens everyday through wars, conquests, colonization, corruption, oppression, stealing, and the like.

Because killing your own kind does not favor your own kid's survival. Never because we were instructed not to.
It's simply because of that. Black widow spiders kill and eat males after mating, they make up for this by giving laying larger amount of eggs. so you may do whatever you like, as long as you make up for it.

Survival of the fittest is always at work. In an exam, only a few will pass. You do not need to kill to be part of those who will pass, you just need to study better.

so survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean kill, it also means survive where others are dying, succeed where others are failing.

wiegraf:

Apply even simpler thought processes to populations separated over (a great deal of time)time.

Hope you know what it means to say the "whole population"?

striktlymi:

Hope you know what it means to say the "whole population"?

hope you understand how that applies to evolution.

ooman:

hope you understand how that applies to evolution.

You seriously talk about understanding when you didn't even realize the extent of your own post?

striktlymi:

You seriously talk about understanding when you didn't even realize the extent of your own post?

exactly why I asked that question.

you know, it's not bad for you to say "ooman, pls explain to me"

striktlymi:

Hope you know what it means to say the "whole population"?

And I was talking about whole populations, right?

me:
Apply even simpler thought processes to populations separated over (a great deal of time)time.

I hope you know what it means when I say that you apply even simpler processes to separated populations, yes?

On another note, why are you derailing? But please do answer these questions.


edit: Btw, the words you're looking for is "whole species", not whole populations

wiegraf:

And I was talking about whole populations, right?

Population separation is not the same as considering the 'whole'...

ooman:

exactly why I asked that question.

you know, it's not bad for you to say "ooman, pls explain to me"

Hope you know that it aint bad to say: I goofed in my first comment...

striktlymi:

Hope you know that it aint bad to say: I goofed in my first comment...

Neither is it bad to admit that you didnt understand ooman.

striktlymi:

Population separation is not the same as considering the 'whole'...

What exactly does this mean? Again, do you even understand what I was asking you to consider?

An edit to the above

Btw, the words you're looking for is "whole species", not whole populations

Even if you were talking about all members of a species (not their various populations), I very clearly was not. Do you understand now?

If all members of a species aren't separated by whatever means, are breeding etc, they evolve together. If separated thereby not interacting, I suppose you expect them to use 'spirit power' to somehow synch the genetic changes, yes?

striktlymi:

Hope you know that it aint bad to say: I goofed in my first comment...

ask and you shall be given, seek and you shall find - jesus

you know what to do.

wiegraf:

Btw, the words you're looking for is "whole species", not whole populations

You just demonstrated that you don't know what is under contention here...

ooman:


ask and you shall be given, seek and you shall find - jesus

you know what to do.

Tired of this dance...

Bottom line: You goofed...

#Enjoy!!!

striktlymi:

Tired of this dance...

Bottom line: You goofed...

#Enjoy!!!

keep saying that and enjoy it if it makes your sunday complete and if you are too proud to learn.

striktlymi:

You just demonstrated that you don't know what is under contention here...

Please, do tell.

Deep Sight: i addressed these questions to Plaetton on another thread, but I now think this merits a thread of its own. These questions are for strict materialist atheists. To avoid all mystery, the questions are intended to contest the basis of morality of the strict materialist atheist.

hello deepsight, it been a while. You are still obsessed with this your question of objective morality. This argument of yours that mortality is given from above has been discussed in the past without any headway. I hope this new one would yield some positive results.

1. Is it wrong or evil to kill animals and please state the reason for your answer.

It can be wrong or right to kill animals depending on circumstances. If the animal is killed for food or it threatens the survival or welbeing of an individual or group, then there is nothing wrong with killing of the animal. But killing of non food or non threatening animals is morally wrong.

2. Is it wrong or evil when animals kill other animals and please state the reason for your answer.

same answer as above. In fact out of all species of higher animals, it is only man that kills other animals for fun.

3. Is it wrong or evil for a cannibal to kill you for the purpose of consuming your meat as food for his sustenance.

cannibalism is very wrong - especially when done for food. Any specie that engage in that type of cannibalism would go extinct very rapidly. Evolution ensures individual, group, family and specie survival, so it is against evolution for a specie to engage in cannibalism. That is why there is a strict food chain ladder, with smaller and numerous animals at the bottom, while bigger and less populated species are at the top. Animals that feed on itself cannot sustain its population. It will be even worse for an intelligent specie like man. With our propensity for greed, the day human meat becomes a delicacy would see the strong wiping out the weak and accumulating and storing enough meat for generations. ( a kind of matrix situation would be created). In fact the vary fabric of human society would break down.

Please let me add some small salt and pepper to Deepsight's kweshun's.

plaetton: ^^^

3. Yes , it is evil and wrong for a cannibal to eat other humans for sustenance.
The simple reason is that humans are not primarily driven by instinct. we weigh, we think, we have options and we make choices.


So, interrupting a human life just for mere sustenance would be irrational, illogical and dangerous to the survival of the species.

Regarding the above and other such like responses, I want to ask what about the poor souls that got caught in the Donner Pass back when the US was spreading west. Those guys ate themselves for 'mere sustenance'. Were they morally wrong? Are Americans wrong to name the Donner Pass after them considering what happened? I was surprised when I heard the story. Who would want to immortalise such an event?

The Donner Party was a California Trail wagon train comprised of 81 American pioneers who in 1846 found themselves trapped by snow in the Sierra Nevada. 36 members of the party perished as a result of starvation, exposure, disease, and trauma, and some of the survivors resorted to cannibalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

Now I think twice whenever I see a Donner Kebab.

9jadelta:
3.
it is wrong for cannibals to kill fellow humans, even animals don't kill the same specie for food. its absolutely wrong. lion don't kill lion, tigers don't kill tigers. they kill other animals

So do we now take our morality from the behaviour of animals.

Deep Sight:


And, if the theory of evolution holds correct; then we are merely advanced animals and surely it remains natural for us to kill for food just as animals do.

I don't think that the theory of evolution says that we are any more advanced than other animals. We are all adapted to our niche environments, we have all, every species, evolved to adapt to it and continue to evolve. If by advanced you mean the species that has changed the most from an initial state then probably bacteria and viruses are the most advanced species on the planet.
In other words, it's not like we have evolved from apes, or are an advanced ape. Rather Us and Apes have a common ancestor we have both 'advanced' from that common ancestor in different directions.

I like the reasoning here:

Deep Sight:

This does not address the question, it evades the questions.

That we are highly developed animals and have found more efficient ways of surviving does not address the morality or otherwise of our primitive ways (which, by the way, are evidently still in existence given the state of the world).

The question is if any of the acts cited can be objectively described as immoral from the Atheistic world-view.

If I am simply a more intelligent animal than other animals, why is it wrong for me to use that intelligence to kill, oppress, seize and generally garner advantages for myself within the competitive and predatory environment in which we live.

Why would it be wrong for me to use my high intelligence to steal food and resources from others? Is this not survival? An animal surviving through its skills and abilities, no? Is this not what occurs in nature and indeed in human society continuously?

If Lions evolved further to a stage where they could farm meat from the soil, would it then become immoral for Lions to kill and eat other creatures for meat? You need to think carefully on this; for you suggest that the bigger brain and better methods suddenly mean that there is a moral wrong in applying more primitive methods of survival.

I am a Lion. Lions kill and take over other Lion Families. Now, as human, I am a more intelligent form. What's wrong with using that greater intelligence to selfishly advance my personal desires? What makes that morally wrong?

If anything, since I am a highly intelligent animal, you, my fellow man, had better wise up and become smarter than me, otherwise, it is legitimate for me to use my smarts to conquer you, seize your goods, family, wife and all - since this is what obtains in the natural world, no? What makes such an approach morally wrong for a highly developed animal?

In nature, might is indeed right! From the atheistic PoV, how is man excluded from nature?

If you will ponder carefully, you will see that in fact, this is what has been going on throughout human history - Might, and not right!

What is morally wrong with that, when this is the obvious way of nature?

Pastor AIO:

I don't think that the theory of evolution says that we are any more advanced than other animals. We are all adapted to our niche environments, we have all, every species, evolved to adapt to it and continue to evolve. If by advanced you mean the species that has changed the most from an initial state then probably bacteria and viruses are the most advanced species on the planet.
In other words, it's not like we have evolved from apes, or are an advanced ape. Rather Us and Apes have a common ancestor we have both 'advanced' from that common ancestor in different directions.

right but what is this ancestor you refer to if not another ape.

We are all Apes, simple.

Pastor AIO:

So do we now take our morality from the behaviour of animals.

he is trying to tell you morality occurs in all social species.

we got our sense of morality from our ape ancestors

ooman:

he is trying to tell you morality occurs in all social species.

we got our sense of morality from our ape ancestors

Wait and let the guy come and speak for himself.

Pastor AIO: Please let me add some small salt and pepper to Deepsight's kweshun's.



Regarding the above and other such like responses, I want to ask what about the poor souls that got caught in the Donner Pass back when the US was spreading west. Those guys ate themselves for 'mere sustenance'. Were they morally wrong? Are Americans wrong to name the Donner Pass after them considering what happened? I was surprised when I heard the story. Who would want to immortalise such an event?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party

Now I think twice whenever I see a Donner Kebab.

This unique event buttresses my point in a way.
First, where the survivors eating the dead corpses of others , or were they killing each other for the purpose of sustenance?

It is unlikely that they fought amongst themselves to see who would eat each other, as this would have been counter-productive and would have drastically reduced their chances of survival.

And that is the point we are trying to make why cannibalism would be wrong, immoral and evil. It would ,in no way, enhance anyone survivability even in the short run.

Imagine what would happen if rather than plant food, hunt animals, build shelter, learn, sing and dance, humans spent their time hunting other humans or trying to evade capture by other humans.
Though a great deal of humanity, Africans especially, have undergone similar trends in their history, we have the mental ability, which other animals do not have ,to look back, rationalize and conclude that those acts were irrational and detrimental the broad spectrum of the human psyche.

That is why we label such acts immoral, evil-mutally detrimental.

As a related digression, man evolutionary journey could not have allow cannibalism for nutrition purposes because man evolutionarily is a herbivor and not a carnivor, and not even an omnivor as seen today. A look at our dentition with big molars and small canine reveals adaptation for chewing and grinding Fruits and nuts and not tearing of meat. Without claws and canine for tearing meat, fire for pre-digesting the meat and to long an intestine with little hydrochloric acid for digesting meat, it would have been impossible for our ancestors to have eaten meat.

A look at our closest relative, the gorilla with almost identical body structure and organs survives almost entirely on fruits, vegetables and nuts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8058000/8058365.stm




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuhXKvxz4-U

Fact is, man and the society in which he lives in will always be guided and regulated by a certain set of rules (moral and otherwise).
These moral rules are what ensures survival (in whatever way you want to interpret it)
Justifying cannibalism will only end in extinction of the human race, so what survival is anybody talking about?
The society exists as a unit and any factor inimical to the survival of the society will definitely be dealt with, be it diseases, or vices such as cannibalism.
The only person you can justify cannibalism to is yourself.