Mr_Anony:
Lol so evolution now has causal properties lol. I thought evolution was actually describing the process of change and was not the agent of change itself. Well, why am I even arguing with your ignorance? You need to go get schooled up mate.

You are becoming more and more nonsensical the more you defend your illogical stance. What kind of nonsense dichotomy are you trying to play here? Agent and process of change?

[size=14pt]
Evolution is change by its default meaning alone. What is the reason for change in species? Evolution or what is it?

Kai, you are losing it[/size]

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I can also mention "degree of height". It doesn't make a short person better or worse evolved than a tall person. Assuming you needed to join the basketball team.....

Height and colour of hair are not functional traits directly affecting our survival. Sense of smell is.


Epic fail. Try again.

Mr_Anony:
Who is talking about Christianity here? The question is how does the dying for someone else or dying for an idea believe fit into a morality based on survival?

I gave you both a logical and evolutionary source, yet you chose to focus on the small part where I attacked christianity?

Evolutionary; survival of the species, just like ants dying for their queen.

Logical; Others feel good and might returnb the favour if we treat them with unconditional love.

Mr_Anony:
If I remember correctly, [size=14pt]I talked about the survival of the teeth and nostrils when talking about snuff and not people's lifespan[/size] but then your comprehension ability being what it is, I didn't really expect you to follow the argument.
It is just sad that [size=14pt]you have a poor capacity to grasp stuff and even worse is that you don't realize it. You are such a bore.[/size]

Survival of teeth/nostrils? See how you pull foolish things from your behind to escape out of the illogical hole you dug for yourself?


1) Survival in biology/evolution is based on life not minor body parts.
2) Snuff tobacco does not kill your nostrils or teeth. It just darkens one a bit and irritates the other.


Please give me a basis for saying that snuff tobacco is bad and you would have to give an evolutionary or logical or a societal basis for morality.



See how dubious you are? You know you have lost the argument and so you complain that I dont understand your points and that I'm a bore!

Logicboy03:

You are becoming more and more nonsensical the more you defend your illogical stance. What kind of nonsense dichotomy are you trying to play here? Agent and process of change?

[size=14pt]
Evolution is change by its default meaning alone. What is the reason for change in species? Evolution or what is it?

Kai, you are losing it[/size]

So your argument all along is basically "change" is the cause of morality and our human moral compass was prepackaged by "change". Your argument makes no sense seeing that Change is a process and not an agent so it does not have the ability to cause anything to be.

Height and colour of hair are not functional traits directly affecting our survival. Sense of smell is.

Epic fail. Try again.

Lol, really? if hair color and height were not affecting the survival of an organism in any way, it would simply not have evolved them. and even if it did, they will eventually become redundant and disappear. You need to get schooled up my friend.

I gave you both a logical and evolutionary source, yet you chose to focus on the small part where I attacked christianity?

Evolutionary; survival of the species, just like ants dying for their queen.

Logical; Others feel good and might returnb the favour if we treat them with unconditional love.

Lol, an ant dying for it's queen is very different from a man dying for his beliefs, or for his friend. There is often no direct link between that sort of death and the survival of the species.
Also it is funny how you can use "returning a favour" and "unconditional love" in the same sentence.

Survival of teeth/nostrils? See how you pull foolish things from your behind to escape out of the illogical hole you dug for yourself?


1) Survival in biology/evolution is based on life not minor body parts.
2) Snuff tobacco does not kill your nostrils or teeth. It just darkens one a bit and irritates the other.

Lol, I can see you found the font size button.
If survival is based on life and not body parts, then it is not morally wrong to go cutting people's ears and little toes since according to you if it doesn't threaten their survival seeing that they are minor body parts, it is not evil. . . .At this point, I am beginning to wonder at your deficient reasoning abilities.

Please give me a basis for saying that snuff tobacco is bad and you would have to give an evolutionary or logical or a societal basis for morality.

Hahahahahahaha........lol, I have never said that snuff is morally wrong, you did besides we have not yet even established that the criteria basis for morality are valid and yet you are requesting that I give you one based on your faulty criteria that you have not yet been able to establish nor properly define. You make me laugh. As I said go get schooled up in logic and philosophy and then come back, so far you have been unimpressive at best.






See how dubious you are? You know you have lost the argument and so you complain that I dont understand your points and that I'm a bore!

Random @wiegraf to @anony

Seems like you fail to understand how simply being born human comes prepackaged with morality (except for maybe sociopaths, as they lack empathy)

Natural selection favored 'morals' in our case, and many other species
Popular examples used, ants have a 'moral' code, the caste system, comes in built
Wolves have a 'moral' code, they have the alpha male, hierarchy, etc. No wolves aren't conscious the way we are, this is biologically written into their system. Comes in built*
Need I mention the other great apes have 'morals' too?
Humans are born with a 'moral' code in built, similar to other species. Empathy plays a huge role in shaping it. In our case, society, or nurture, helps shape it as well. But the bare structure would still exist even if one were raised away from society. Experiments with infants point that way, and simple logic actually. We are, after all, a social species, and like I said already all the other great apes have 'moral' codes. Of course with our conscious intelligence, we freestyle with it, and nurture/environment influences it. We take it places other species don't; rituals, religions, etc.
So, as a member of our species, unless you're missing some rather common genes, you come prepackaged with morality

And are you the one claiming there's an atheistic moral code? Not sure who is. If you are, stop it @anony, after all this time? Bad @anony! So, is there a theistic moral code all theists conform to? Or maybe one all deists conform to? These are not religions, or cultures even. No codes, rituals, etc...



*All sorts of peculiar behavior are written into genes btw. For instance some dog breeds love to chase cars, others don't. The ones that do you'll find were used by shepherds back in the day. So they see a car moving, they substitute 'goat' for 'car' and start chasing. This, of course, even if they've never seen a goat, cow etc before or were trained to chase cars. They're just hard wired to chase big moving objects. Other breeds could care less

Mr_Anony:
So your argument all along is basically "change" is the cause of morality and our human moral compass was prepackaged by "change". Your argument makes no sense seeing that Change is a process and not an agent so it does not have the ability to cause anything to be.

Reductio ad absurdum.

Does evolution only mean change? Why have you been living in denial? Reducing evolution to only mean "change" so that you can deny that it is a source of our prepackaged morality!

Where does the natural instinct for a mother to protect the baby come from? Hmmm? Just directly from god? Or as an evolutionary instinct to protect offspring?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, really? if hair color and height were not affecting the survival of an organism in any way, it would simply not have evolved them. and even if it did, they will eventually become redundant and disappear. You need to get schooled up my friend.

Stop embarrassing yourself. How as height or hair colour as a human being affected your ability to survive? Our human ancestors were shorter than us and were biologically better survivors than us living in the jungles.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, an ant dying for it's queen is very different from a man dying for his beliefs, or for his friend. There is often no direct link between that sort of death and the survival of the species.
Also it is funny how you can use "returning a favour" and "unconditional love" in the same sentence.

An ant dying for a queen is related to a man protecting and dying for his children. This can be seen from the sense of survival of the future species. A friend is a human- same species (assuming that the friends life is worth it and better than yours)

Dying for a a belief can be very irrational depending on the situation. This is out of our scope of morality. Please dont ask foolish questions to sidestep away from the main issue.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I can see you found the font size button.
If survival is based on life and not body parts, then it is not morally wrong to go cutting people's ears and little toes since according to you if it doesn't threaten their survival seeing that they are minor body parts, it is not evil. . . .At this point, I am beginning to wonder at your deficient reasoning abilities.

Non sequitur! If I cut off your ear, it is gone forever. If you take snuff tobacco, your teeth and nose still survive. You fail.

Why would you play the strawman of claiming that I wont see mutilating the ear and toes of a person as immoral?

From a logical source of morality, what would be the benefit of me cutting off your ear?

Mr_Anony:
Hahahahahahaha........lol, I have never said that snuff is morally wrong, you did besides we have not yet even established that the criteria basis for morality are valid and yet you are requesting that I give you one based on your faulty criteria that you have not yet been able to establish nor properly define. You make me laugh. As I said go get schooled up in logic and philosophy and then come back, so far you have been unimpressive at best.

[size=14pt]You have undeniably lost the argument.



Imagine a christian is scared to say that snuff is morally wrong! Would you take snuff on church premises after service? Or would allow your teenage children to be hooked on snuff?



Answer the question! You dont want to answer the question because you would be making my point- there is a logical source of morality weighing the benefits of certain issues.[/size]

Logicboy03:

Reductio ad absurdum.

Does evolution only mean change? Why have you been living in denial? Reducing evolution to only mean "change" so that you can deny that it is a source of our prepackaged morality!

Where does the natural instinct for a mother to protect the baby come from? Hmmm? Just directly from god? Or as an evolutionary instinct to protect offspring?

Lol, the point is that things cause other things to change or evolve, the change/evolution can not cause things in itself. what you are saying still makes no sense.

Stop embarrassing yourself. How as height or hair colour as a human being affected your ability to survive? Our human ancestors were shorter than us and were biologically better survivors than us living in the jungles.

Lol, the point you are missing is that evolution occurs at the cellular level, for the color of hair to change, a gene responsible for that hair color has had to adapt and survive at that level else the change won't occur.

An ant dying for a queen is related to a man protecting and dying for his children. This can be seen from the sense of survival of the future species. A friend is a human- same species (assuming that the friends life is worth it and better than yours)

Dying for a a belief can be very irrational depending on the situation. This is out of our scope of morality. Please dont ask foolish questions to sidestep away from the main issue.

On the contrary, I believe altruism is central to human morality. When a man dies for a belief or for his friend, he does it believing he is doing the morally right thing. The question that lies before you is: How does a system whose "greatest good" is survival of the fittest bring about a species whose greatest good is self-sacrifice?

Non sequitur! If I cut off your ear, it is gone forever. If you take snuff tobacco, your teeth and nose still survive. You fail.

Why would you play the strawman of claiming that I wont see mutilating the ear and toes of a person as immoral?

Wow, you like to argue in circles don't you? You claimed that anything that threatens survival of man and not his minor body parts is evil. I only presented you with minor body parts that can faithfully be deleted and you are complaining.

From a logical source of morality, what would be the benefit of me cutting off your ear?

There is no such thing as a logical source of morality. Logic in itself has no sense of "good or bad". All logic is concerned about is "true or false"

[size=14pt]You have undeniably lost the argument.



Imagine a christian is scared to say that snuff is morally wrong! Would you take snuff on church premises after service? Or would allow your teenage children to be hooked on snuff?



Answer the question! You dont want to answer the question because you would be making my point- there is a logical source of morality weighing the benefits of certain issues.[/size]

Lol, you have not even made an argument in the first place. I don't take snuff and I don't hold that snuff is morally wrong. Why exactly is taking snuff morally wrong if I may ask?

wiegraf: Random @wiegraf to @anony

Seems like you fail to understand how simply being born human comes prepackaged with morality (except for maybe sociopaths, as they lack empathy)

Natural selection favored 'morals' in our case, and many other species
Popular examples used, ants have a 'moral' code, the caste system, comes in built
Wolves have a 'moral' code, they have the alpha male, hierarchy, etc. No wolves aren't conscious the way we are, this is biologically written into their system. Comes in built*
Need I mention the other great apes have 'morals' too?
Humans are born with a 'moral' code in built, similar to other species. Empathy plays a huge role in shaping it. In our case, society, or nurture, helps shape it as well. But the bare structure would still exist even if one were raised away from society. Experiments with infants point that way, and simple logic actually. We are, after all, a social species, and like I said already all the other great apes have 'moral' codes. Of course with our conscious intelligence, we freestyle with it, and nurture/environment influences it. We take it places other species don't; rituals, religions, etc.
So, as a member of our species, unless you're missing some rather common genes, you come prepackaged with morality

This is still a long way from explaining how self-sacrifice is our greatest good instead of self-preservation as should naturally follow from a "survival of the fittest" phenomenon. If you argue that man is a social animal, at best you get reciprocity but never altruism and self-sacrifice. These are in direct contradiction to genes whose sole aim is to survive.

And are you the one claiming there's an atheistic moral code? Not sure who is. If you are, stop it @anony, after all this time? Bad @anony! So, is there a theistic moral code all theists conform to? Or maybe one all deists conform to? These are not religions, or cultures even. No codes, rituals, etc...

I didn't make such a claim

*All sorts of peculiar behavior are written into genes btw. For instance some dog breeds love to chase cars, others don't. The ones that do you'll find were used by shepherds back in the day. So they see a car moving, they substitute 'goat' for 'car' and start chasing. This, of course, even if they've never seen a goat, cow etc before or were trained to chase cars. They're just hard wired to chase big moving objects. Other breeds could care less

And what has this got to do with morality?

Mr_Anony:
On the contrary, [size=28pt]I believe altruism is central to human morality.[/size] When a man dies for a belief or for his friend, he does it believing he is doing the morally right thing. The question that lies before you is: How does a system whose "greatest good" is survival of the fittest bring about a species whose greatest good is self-sacrifice?

Logicboy03:

3)[b] I am not moral because of atheism. I am moral because I am a human (humans already come prepackaged with an evolutionary sense of morality) which we hone through logic and interactions with society
[/b]

Game over! Simple. Human morality.

Slavery is immoral from a humanistic point of view.

Logicboy03:

Game over! Simple. Human morality.

Slavery is immoral from a humanistic point of view.

hahahahahahahaha, LWKMD! so eager to declare a "victory" that you resort to quoting out of context. How pathetic.

Let me remind you, the argument is not about whether human beings have morals or not but about what is the basis of human morality.

You still have a lot of work to do.
You are yet to provide an objective basis of morality for which slavery would be classified as morally wrong.

Mr_Anony:
hahahahahahahaha, LWKMD! so eager to declare a "victory" that you resort to quoting out of context. How pathetic.

Let me remind you, the argument is not about whether human beings have morals or not but about what is the basis of human morality.

You still have a lot of work to do.
You are yet to provide an objective basis of morality for which slavery would be classified as morally wrong.

Yawn. The full quote is there.

You didnt say, religious morality or christian morality or godly morality


You said human morality. The basis is irrelevant to the original question of whether slavery is immoral. It is from a humanistic morality.




Game Over, you lose.

Logicboy03:



Yawn. The full quote is there.

You didnt say, religious morality or christian morality or godly morality


You said human morality. The basis is irrelevant to the original question of whether slavery is immoral. It is from a humanistic morality.




Game Over, you lose.

Lol, there is a world of difference between human morality and humanistic morality (besides I was replying to a comment that featured ant morality so I had to specify).
The question of whether slavery is immoral can only be answered if first of all you define the basis by which you classify slavery as morally evil.

Your attempt to declare yourself "winner" is really pathetic. A convenient dubious cop-out in order to save face. You make me laugh.

Your work is still cut out for you but if claiming "victory" is what makes you happy, I'll let you off. SMH

Mr_Anony:
Lol, there is a world of difference between human morality and humanistic morality (besides I was replying to a comment that featured ant morality so I had to specify).
The question of whether slavery is immoral can only be answered if first of all you define the basis by which you classify slavery as morally evil.

Your attempt to declare yourself "winner" is really pathetic. A convenient dubious cop-out in order to save face. You make me laugh.

Your work is still cut out for you but if claiming "victory" is what makes you happy, I'll let you off. SMH

lol......human and humanistic morality are different?


I have given you a basis for human morality from evolution. logic and society.

What have you done? nothing but complain and make illogical statements about evolution!


You ended up saying altruism is central to human morality? But now you want to deny that there is no basis for human morality?


FAIL!

You lose.

Mr_Anony:
This is still a long way from explaining how self-sacrifice is our greatest good instead of self-preservation as should naturally follow from a "survival of the fittest" phenomenon. If you argue that man is a social animal, at best you get reciprocity but never altruism and self-sacrifice. These are in direct contradiction to genes whose sole aim is to survive.

Self-sacrifice isn't our greatest good (I'm not even sure what I said that gives you the idea I subscribe to that notion). Ultimately, for the vast majority of us, ie, those of us with the standard genes, self-preservation is. It's in the interest of members of the species that the whole species survives, not just the individual. Either ways members of your species will still carry your genes. So altruism/self-sacrifise actually aids your self-preservation, just indirectly. Survival of the fittest doesn't just involve your neighbor, it involves other tribes, other species, etc. Early humans that cooperated more, armed with more empathy (probably our primary tool in shaping up morality) won the 'survival of the fittest' gig, we are their legacy.

Mr_Anony:
I didn't make such a claim

Ok

Mr_Anony:
And what has this got to do with morality?

Demonstrate just how much behavior can be passed down biologically. In this case personality being strongly shaped by genes. Apply that to morality, or empathy of humans

Logicboy03:


lol......human and humanistic morality are different?


I have given you a basis for human morality from evolution. logic and society.

What have you done? nothing but complain and make illogical statements about evolution!


You ended up saying altruism is central to human morality? But now you want to deny that there is no basis for human morality?


FAIL!

You lose.

Lol, All I have done through this thread is to show you that there is no such thing as an evolutionary, logical or societal basis for morality as none of them possess objective values by which morality may be ascertained.

There is a difference between morality of humans and morality of humanism. I am sure you know this but if you insist on dubiously claiming "victory" based on a shoddy play on semantics, you are free. I don't really expect better from you anyway.

Knock yourself out.

wiegraf:

Self-sacrifice isn't our greatest good (I'm not even sure what I said that gives you the idea I subscribe to that notion). Ultimately, for the vast majority of us, ie, those of us with the standard genes, self-preservation is. It's in the interest of members of the species that the whole species survives, not just the individual. Either ways members of your species will still carry your genes. So altruism/self-sacrifise actually aids your self-preservation, just indirectly. Survival of the fittest doesn't just involve your neighbor, it involves other tribes, other species, etc. Early humans that cooperated more, armed with more empathy (probably our primary tool in shaping up morality) won the 'survival of the fittest' gig, we are their legacy.

If you claim that self-preservation is our greatest good, then self-sacrifice must be at the other end of the spectrum as they are mutually exclusive. You cannot simultaneously give ultimate value to preserving your life and sacrificing it. They cannot be complimentary. When one person sacrifices his life for someone else, he has not preserved it but rather has preserved the life of another person. Incidentally human beings tend to attach more value morally to the person who gave up his life than to the one who tried to preserve it i.e. one that sacrifices his life is the hero(good) while the one that tries to preserve it is a coward(evil). This sort of moral value system does not logically follow from "survival of the fittest" rather it contradicts it.

Demonstrate just how much behavior can be passed down biologically. In this case personality being strongly shaped by genes. Apply that to morality, or empathy of humans

Ok, I have heard you.

Mr_Anony:
My friend, when we observe order, we deduce that there must be an orderer. Not knowing why he ordered it a certain way does not take anything away from the fact that the orderer exists.
I'll give you a parallel. When we observe a murder, we deduce a murderer. Not knowing why the murderer used 12 bullets to the head instead of 1 or 5 or 3 does not take anything away from the fact that the murderer exists.

Finally, God is uncaused simply means that God is uncaused i.e. He is eternal and didn't come into existence at a point in time.

seriously?this is the best you can come up with?what sort of warped logic is that?you mentioned the order in the universe,what of the disorder in the universe?does that mean therez a disorderer?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, All I have done through this thread is to show you that there is no such thing as an evolutionary, logical or societal basis for morality as none of them possess objective values by which morality may be ascertained.

There is a difference between morality of humans and morality of humanism. I am sure you know this but if you insist on dubiously claiming "victory" based on a shoddy play on semantics, you are free. I don't really expect better from you anyway.

Knock yourself out.

[size=28pt]
Why not expose my ignorance on the difference between human and humanistic morality?


Furthermore, I knew you were ignorant about evolutionary biology. There are hundreds of studies on the morality and ethics of humans from an evolutionar biology perspective

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolutionary+biology+morality&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=h7qeUNKELued0AXy-YDwCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA




Your ignorance is on display here.[/size]

Delafruita:
seriously?this is the best you can come up with?what sort of warped logic is that?you mentioned the order in the universe,what of the disorder in the universe?does that mean therez a disorderer?

lol, you are arguing only for the sake of argument here, chaos and disorder would be the case if there was no intelligence. The moment you experience order, you deduce an orderer. The more complex and sophisticated this order is, the more intelligence you would deduce that the orderer has. Disorder does not point to intelligence.

A parallel: When you see a mud sculpture, you deduce a sculptor because you have observed 'ordered mud' but you don't deduce an 'anti-sculptor' when you see a mud puddle.

It is simple logic really.

Logicboy03:

[size=28pt]
Why not expose my ignorance on the difference between human and humanistic morality?


Furthermore, I knew you were ignorant about evolutionary biology. There are hundreds of studies on the morality and ethics of humans from an evolutionar biology perspective

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolutionary+biology+morality&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=h7qeUNKELued0AXy-YDwCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA




Your ignorance is on display here.[/size]

Lol, large font and no content.

You linked me to a google search lol really? is that your proof?

You bore me really.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, large font and no content.

You linked me to a google search lol really? is that your proof?

You bore me really.

Is that all you can say?


Where is your basis for human morality? I gave you a scientifcally backed evolutionary basis and also a logical basis.



~#Anony debunked.

Mr_Anony:
If you claim that self-preservation is our greatest good, then self-sacrifice must be at the other end of the spectrum as they are mutually exclusive. You cannot simultaneously give ultimate value to preserving your life and sacrificing it. They cannot be complimentary. When one person sacrifices his life for someone else, he has not preserved it but rather has preserved the life of another person. Incidentally human beings tend to attach more value morally to the person who gave up his life than to the one who tried to preserve it i.e. one that sacrifices his life is the hero(good) while the one that tries to preserve it is a coward(evil). This sort of moral value system does not logically follow from "survival of the fittest" rather it contradicts it.

Ok, I have heard you.

This is blatant LALALALA. Not yet wharrgarbl, but close. Like I've already said, altruism aids a species or group's survival rate (in some cases, not all species are social). The groups with the more altruistic traits among members survive. Altruistic genes spread, they are now the 'fittest' in the survival of the fittest competition. So, altruism may not aid you ostensibly as an individual but it aids the species or tribe, pack, etc. Hence its ubiquity in the social species.


Random: above is all that's needed to explain the rather obvious biological basis for altruism, this is just for kicks.

You have a rather simplistic view of the situation. There is no contradiction, they do in fact complement each other to form a balance. The ultimate aim is survival and you cannot survive on your own. The individual is constantly weighing, "survival of the group, or just me?". Depending on the persons empathy levels, conditioning etc, he would at times choose the group, at other times just himself.

So for our species, we have genes wired for altruism. They won the survival of the fittest gig and established us as a social species. There is the biological imperative to aid the group, to cooperate in order to survive. Of course these genes are balanced by the more immediately selfish ones, concerned with the self only. The overall goal is survival. Sacrifice is necessary for the group to survive. In extreme cases for instance, rather than just one individual dying as a sacrifice, the whole group dies because no individual was willing to be the sacrifice. So when sacrifice is deemed necessary an individual will be altruistic. When not we revert to selfishness (or more of a balance, if you will).

As for the complexity of our morality, nature gave us feet to move around, but considering we have conscious intelligence we've been able to build cars, planes etc to help our feet. Nature has also given us the basics for morality, but considering our intelligence we've also built; ethical codes. We can take it (and a lot of other things) further faster than mother nature because we have intelligence and goals.


edits

Can't the universe be uncaused,eternal and not having started at a point in time.

Logicboy03:


Is that all you can say?


Where is your basis for human morality? I gave you a scientifcally backed evolutionary basis and also a logical basis.



~#Anony debunked.

Lolololol....I was wondering how long it will take before you threw in your favourite word "debunked".

You did not give any basis for morality so please don't kid yourself that you did.

I have come to realize that for you, an argument is all about shouting loudest and getting in the last word so here you are welcome to the last word. Come back when you have schooled up in some logic because currently your arguments are super awful.

Mr_Anony:
Lolololol....I was wondering how long it will take before you threw in your favourite word "debunked".

You did not give any basis for morality so please don't kid yourself that you did.

I have come to realize that for you, an argument is all about shouting loudest and getting in the last word so here you are welcome to the last word. Come back when you have schooled up in some logic because currently your arguments are super awful.

Lol......evidence. I gave you an evolutionary basis for human morality that has been studied by sicence. The link below is a google search on morality and evolutionary biology.


Keep living in denial, the evidence is there for those that dont want to remain ignorant like you. Keep rejecting evidence



http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolutionary+biology+morality&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=h7qeUNKELued0AXy-YDwCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA

wiegraf:

This is blatant LALALALA. Not yet wharrgarbl, but close. Like I've already said, altruism aids a species or group's survival rate (in some cases, not all species are social). The groups with the more altruistic traits among members survive. Altruistic genes spread, they are now the 'fittest' in the survival of the fittest competition. So, altruism may not aid you ostensibly as an individual but it aids the species or tribe, pack, etc. Hence its ubiquity in the social species.


Random: above is all that's needed to explain the rather obvious biological basis for altruism, this is just for kicks.

You have a rather simplistic view of the situation. There is no contradiction, they do in fact complement each other to form a balance. The ultimate aim is survival and you cannot survive on your own. The individual is constantly weighing, "survival of the group, or just me?". Depending on the persons empathy levels, conditioning etc, he would at times choose the group, at other times just himself.

So for our species, we have genes wired for altruism. They won the survival of the fittest gig and established us as a social species. There is the biological imperative to aid the group, to cooperate in order to survive. Of course these genes are balanced by the more immediately selfish ones, concerned with the self only. The overall goal is survival. Sacrifice is necessary for the group to survive. In extreme cases for instance, rather than just one individual dying as a sacrifice, the whole group dies because no individual was willing to be the sacrifice. So when sacrifice is deemed necessary an individual will be altruistic. When not we revert to selfishness (or more of a balance, if you will).

As for the complexity of our morality, nature gave us feet to move around, but considering we have conscious intelligence we've been able to build cars, planes etc to help our feet. Nature has also given us the basics for morality, but considering our intelligence we've also built; ethical codes. We can take it (and a lot of other things) further faster than mother nature because we have intelligence and goals.


edits

My friend, I don't have much time for a pointless argument. You have argued that self-preservation or preservation of the group is our greatest good because we 'evolved' that way.
My counter argument is simply that self-preservation is not our greatest good because we ascribe the highest moral value to those who put themselves in harm's way for other people infact the more unrelated to you the subject of your kindness is, the more value we ascribe to your "goodness" i.e. dying for someone else and being kind to a stranger are what we hold in higher moral esteem as opposed to being selfish or helping only close relatives.

A "survival of the fittest" phenomenon such as evolution would have favoured selfishness or anything that seeks to preserve the most similar genes instead of self- sacrifice. Our morality runs contrary to this because we value kindness to strangers as morally better than kindness to self and family. When we are kind to family, we don't really regard ourselves as heroes but see it as duty.

If you get it you get it, if you don't you don't. I have made my point. I am not interested in a merry-go-round argument, your pal logicboy has filled the slot for stupid arguments for this weekend. Try again next weekend, I'll probably be free to play again then.

Femmymata2: Can't the universe be uncaused,eternal and not having started at a point in time.

But it has been demonstrated that the universe has a beginning

Logicboy03:



Lol......evidence. I gave you an evolutionary basis for human morality that has been studied by sicence. The link below is a google search on morality and evolutionary biology.


Keep living in denial, the evidence is there for those that dont want to remain ignorant like you. Keep rejecting evidence



http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=evolutionary+biology+morality&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=h7qeUNKELued0AXy-YDwCA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA

lol, of course a google search counts as evidence these days. smh

Mr_Anony:
lol, of course a google search counts as evidence these days. smh

A google search that shows numerous scientific journals on morality and evolution.


A wise man is not cowed by knowledge.


You have lost the argument.


Humility is not a christian value as I have learnt from Anony's behaviour today

Mr_Anony:
My friend, I don't have much time for a pointless argument. You have argued that self-preservation or preservation of the group is our greatest good because we 'evolved' that way.
My counter argument is simply that self-preservation is not our greatest good because we ascribe the highest moral value to those who put themselves in harm's way for other people infact the more unrelated to you the subject of your kindness is, the more value we ascribe to your "goodness" i.e. dying for someone else and being kind to a stranger are what we hold in higher moral esteem as opposed to being selfish or helping only close relatives.

A "survival of the fittest" phenomenon such as evolution would have favoured selfishness or anything that seeks to preserve the most similar genes instead of self- sacrifice. Our morality runs contrary to this because we value kindness to strangers as morally better than kindness to self and family. When we are kind to family, we don't really regard ourselves as heroes but see it as duty.

If you get it you get it, if you don't you don't. I have made my point. I am not interested in a merry-go-round argument, your pal logicboy has filled the slot for stupid arguments for this weekend. Try again next weekend, I'll probably be free to play again then.

In essence, you're running off?
You could have just said so rather than wharrgarbl again
This is still clearly LALALALALALALALALALA. No shananigans can cover that. Blatantly ignoring how altruism aids the group. Or how we have intelligence and so can extend on our own in built moral system. Come up with ethics, religions and such (which consciously value altruism in this day and age). There's a half point there, you're not looking at the full picture because its conclusions do not agree with what some shepherds said ~2000 years ago, and said goatmen happened to brainwash your ancestors
Train, then please come up with something better next week

Logicboy03:


A google search that shows numerous scientific journals on morality and evolution.


A wise man is not cowed by knowledge.


You have lost the argument.


Humility is not a christian value as I have learnt from Anony's behaviour today

I tire sef...
When science is completely done with morality wait and hear how they'll spin it... God can never lose, it seems...It will be a translation problem...

wiegraf:

I tire sef...
When science is completely done with morality wait and hear how they'll spin it... God can never lose, it seems...It will be a translation problem...

I myself don tire.

The guy has no humility. Proven wrong beyond doubt and he still spins.

@Logicboy, i am surprise you can allude to a link to provide support to your argument, when you recently accuse me of copy and pasting articles to support my point. All you've done all day is to tactical dodge the point My Anony has been making. And as for wiegraf, it is no use answering your comment cos most are really merry go round.

diehard: @Logicboy, i am surprise you can allude to a link to provide support to your argument, when you recently accuse me of copy and pasting articles to support my point. All you've done all day is to tactical dodge the point My Anony has been making. And as for wiegraf, it is no use answering your comment cos most are really merry go round.

*SMH*
You fall for anony's sophistry as well? The other articles were not enough? Do you have a mind of your own? Demonstrate the merry go round