Evolution Brought About Morality ?

How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?

How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.

Originally posted by sonship
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?

How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.

Are you assuming everyone thinks there is one universal morality?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you assuming everyone thinks there is one universal morality?

I did not write the word universal in order to leave it open.

I believe a universal objective moral standard does exist.
Do you think the issue is made simpler if I jettison a UOMS (Universal Objective Moral Standard) ?

Originally posted by sonship
Do you think the issue is made simpler if I jettison a UOMS (Universal Objective Moral Standard) ?

No, I just think you may get more interesting and varied responses. Furthermore, your response here indicates that your OP is loaded; I.e. If there is a universal moral standard, then by definition there cannot be one which developed with the evolutionary process. So you have already answered your own question.

Originally posted by sonship
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?

How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.

Are you suggesting that naturalism as a methodology cannot satisfactorily explain morality? If so, what about it is unsatisfactory? Perhaps it is being stretched beyond its limits.

Originally posted by JS357
Are you suggesting that naturalism as a methodology cannot satisfactorily explain morality? If so, what about it is unsatisfactory? Perhaps it is being stretched beyond its limits.

You're too tough JS357. I can't deal with you today!

Originally posted by JS357
Are you suggesting that naturalism as a methodology cannot satisfactorily explain morality? If so, what about it is unsatisfactory? Perhaps it is being stretched beyond its limits.

I am looking for some people's thoughts HOW this process of Evolution (a Biological process) is responsible for the abstractions of Morality, Right, Human Dignity, all that good transcendent stuff.

i am told the process even has no purpose. I am told that there is no "good" purpose in Blind Watchmaker style evolution. What does Evolution then give us? Is it just a purely subjective preference to survive ?

Why should human beings survive over anything else ?
How did Evolution bestow this "worth" and "value" to mankind that this species is so that the "good" of its survival should take place ?

Come on now. I have enough out here now to get myself into plenty of trouble. Give us some explanation.

Originally posted by sonship
You're too tough JS357. I can't deal with you today!

I mean, naturalistic (non-supernatural) psychology takes as subject matter, ideas, as real, studiable things. How did the idea of moral absolutes arise? This can be studied at a level higher than the physics of matter, and can be studied without denying that certain moral ideas that are believed to be absolutes, may be true about the universe. For example, some people believe in karma, cosmic justice. We can make hypotheses about what we see happening in the natural world and see if it exhibits karma or not, or if there are reasons explaining when and how it happens and when it doesn't. What naturalism cannot do is find evidence for or against the existence of a non-naturalistic fudge factor that squares everyone's karma account. Naturalism "doesn't go there."

Originally posted by sonship
I am looking for some people's thoughts HOW this process of Evolution (a Biological process) is responsible for the abstractions of Morality, Right, Human Dignity, all that good transcendent stuff.

i am told the process even has no purpose. I am told that there is no "good" purpose in Blind Watchmaker style evolution. What does Evolution then give us? ...[text shortened]... now. I have enough out here now to get myself into plenty of trouble. Give us some explanation.

But you will not accept anyone else's definition of 'morality" so it is impossible to talk about it within a common frame of reference. Why don't you start with your defnition of morality?

Originally posted by sonship
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?

How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.

Please see the other thread for a description of the notional error that you keep making. Providing etiological explanation of the human moral faculty should not be confused with providing a meta-ethical account.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Please see the other thread for a description of the notional error that you keep making. Providing etiological explanation of the human moral faculty should not be confused with providing a meta-ethical account.

. Providing etiological explanation of the human moral faculty should not be confused with providing a meta-ethical account.

Just provide the etiological explanation of the human moral faculty by means of evolution. You said that it was the obvious alternative to the nature of God. If I am not quoting exactly, I am close enough.

So your origin of the moral faculty by means of Evolution you can talk about here.

Originally posted by sonship
How did the material biological process give rise to objective moral standards ?

How did Biological evolution of material through mutations give rise to immaterial moral law, moral right, moral value and dignity in man.

Morality is not a physical, tangible thing; it's an idea. As humans evolved, their ability to reason also evolved. Humans, over countless generations, started to realize some practices were best for both the individual and the whole, and gradually, though trial and error, developed moral concepts.

Originally posted by vivify
Morality is not a physical, tangible thing; it's an idea. As humans evolved, their ability to reason also evolved. Humans, over countless generations, started to realize some practices were best for both the individual and the whole, and gradually, though trial and error, developed moral concepts.

So therefore no action can be deemed to be intrinsically wrong?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So therefore no action can be deemed to be intrinsically wrong?

What does "intrinsically wrong" mean that differentiates them from wrongs that are not intrinsically wrong? Or are all wrongs intrinsically wrong?

Originally posted by JS357
What does "intrinsically wrong" mean that differentiates them from wrongs that are not intrinsically wrong? Or are all wrongs intrinsically wrong?

An intrinsically immoral act is by its very nature, immoral. If an action is not intrinsically wrong it means that some people may label it as wrong according to their subjective opinion and another group of people may feel the action is not wrong.