1 edit
As far back as we can see. Everything in this life tries to protect what is theirs. Weather it be a plant trying to protect its seeds or a mother trying to protect its young. Even farther as detailed into life as you want to look. Its all about you and your offspring's survival.
Humans are very complex. We try to protect whats ours (our offspring). Because of society we have complex morals. Yes. Having morals is what makes life better for everyone. Humans see that selfishness is not good because of the effect it has on your life and others. We see that to much greed is bad.. really... too much of anything is bad. To much chess!?!?
Our morals are just and advanced way of survival. So maybe it is the nervous system that helps interact with morals. But it think there is more to it than that.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, morality is a result of evolution. Ironically, all those who later embrace evolution would then be slowly driven mad trying to explain its origins with no real definitive answers.
Nonsense.
Plants exhibit aspects of morality without the aid of a nervous system. Morality is in part a direct outcome of evolution.
Originally posted by smw6869Why just the other day my plant looked at me and told me either he had to go or the blind on the window had to go. He just could'nt take the lack of sun any longer. It was then, however, that I realized I had forgotten to take my medications. 🙄
How do plants make decisions?
Originally posted by agryson..... the Natural Moral Law.
I'd go further and say that morality did not exist before society. Of course that goes for any society, animal or human, but that morality is a construct to aid in producing group mentalities, rules which have evolved in the way they have to provide the maximum benefit to human society. Richard Dawkins quoted some excellent studies on this in his book, The G ...[text shortened]... common moral principles, I'll look up the reference he gave later, it was a fascinating read.
4 edits
Originally posted by agryson"..... his argument was to show that religion or lack thereof did not affect your moral compass, .... "
I found his piece on morality excellent, I tested out his "fat guy on a bridge" vs. "one guy tied to tracks" moral question on a few friends of different religious persuasion, and also my little brother, everyone came to the same conclusion. Yes, he didn't go into any depth as to why it evolved, but his argument was to show that religion or lack thereof did ly the complexity of the situation that introduces the grey shades, not the morals.
Well, superficially this seems to be true in a sense, but the statement is rather one-dimensional.
The Natural Moral Law is engraved in every human being's heart. This however does not mean that everybody simply knows what is morally right or wrong in every, complicated or less complicated, situation.
Your conscience, which, from the individual's perspective decides in the end what is right or wrong in a certain situation, can err, can be morally wrong in a certain matter. We can read about that in the papers every day .... and, if you want to, you can spot it in your own personal life too. The training of a conscience in deciding what is morally right or wrong, without any doubt, has to do with which type of moral system, religion or ideology you believe in. You can choose to train your conscience by studying and joining the Ku Klux Klan, but you can also choose to join another group with another ideology / religion. The training of your conscience (education in morality) will also decide what you consider to be right or wrong. Where would politics be without it ?
This does not deny or contradict the fact that the Natural Moral Law is engraved in the hearts ( .... or the genes if you want) of every human being. Therefore the statement "..... religion or lack thereof does not affect your moral compass, .... " is in a superficial sense true. However, it lacks depth and dynamics and because of that the statement is one-dimensional and leads into the wrong direction. Therefore it is, in the end, misleading.
Originally posted by ivanhoeMy statement was too broad, I had meant it in the sense that I had referred to earlier when speaking about how society has led to the complex morality we have today (page two I think). That post was in response to a comment on Richard Dawkins. Bringing it back into the thread, I feel that morality is an emergent property, which one can find in any sufficently complicated system, to a likewise complicated form. It does not rely soley on a nervous system, any substrate will do, silicon, bacteria on a rock, whatever. But the more complicated the substrate, the more detailed the morality will be.
"..... his argument was to show that religion or lack thereof did not affect your moral compass, .... "
Well, superficially this seems to be true in a sense, but the statement is rather one-dimensional.
The Natural Moral Law is engraved in every human being's heart. This however does not mean that everybody simply knows what is morally right or wrong ...[text shortened]... e-dimensional and leads into the wrong direction. Therefore it is, in the end, misleading.
Of course the core morality we are born with can be twisted, we are both a genotype and a phenotype, but there's a good body of evidence to show that we as a species possess the same "morality genotype".
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungClams have a nervous system. They just don't have a spine. Since a moral or immoral act requires a decision, and the only decision making substrate in existence today is the nervous system, then there probably is no clear example of a moral act being performed before its (the nervous systems) existence.
Can you describe an evil or good/moral or immoral act that took place before the evolution of the nervous system? We're talking invertebrates here I think. Can a clam sin?
However, interesting points can be made about the emergence of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). It will not have a nervous system, but should be capable of moral and immoral acts, and be aware of their morality/immorality at the same time.
Edit: Spelling
1 edit
Originally posted by agrysonTrue. Ok then...can a sponge sin?
Clams have a nervous system. They just don't have a spine. Since a moral or immoral act requires a decision, and the only decision making substrate in existence today is the nervous system, then there probably is no clear example of a moral act being performed before its (the nervous systems) existence.
However, interesting points can be made about the eme ...[text shortened]... and immoral acts, and be aware of their morality/immorality at the same time.
Edit: Spelling
An AI could be immoral, but only if there's something which can experience pain or pleasure to experience the consequences of that immorality. Thus we're back to the nervous system.
The statement that a conscious decision is necessary is interesting. My intuition disagrees. This leads to "what is the definition of morality?". That's where any discussion about morality falls apart, since there is no one clear definition.