Evolution Brought About Morality ?

An anthropologist argues that some of our values are related to society structure, specifically energy capture:
YouTube

Originally posted by twhitehead
An anthropologist argues that some of our values are related to society structure, specifically energy capture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yy2P5XkEPIs

Operative word there - "some" which of course i never denied.

A society in the UK values driving on the opposite side of the street as a society in the US.

In the Far East respect is valued by bowing before another person.
In the West respect is valued by shaking hands.

I say, written on the hearts of both is God's design of human mutual RESPECT which both cultures intuitively value.

In both cultures having order on the highway rather than chaos is valued intuitively. the standard Moral Law is written on the hearts of created human beings by their Creator.

Societies arrive at different methods to enact some of these intuitively sensed values.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are either lying about me again, or your memory is poor.

You still want mind readers.
Read mind for details.

You cannot prove by quotation that you changed your stubborn position that facts can be about things which are not true ? Since it comes up repeatedly you better keep handy your post proving your shift or back peddle from that boo-boo.

If you weren't so arrogant and condescending we might not bring it up repeatedly.

Originally posted by divegeester

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.

It is not a loaded scenario if you think Evolution brought about recognition of a some moral law which somehow existed apart from living things as truth.

I think some people leave room for Evolution not creating the values but caused emerging life to recognize the values.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Animals show more empathy to their own group than to other groups. Animals that act as parents show more empathy than animals that do not.
There is very very strong evidence that empathy evolved.
Morality is really just post justification for empathy with a bit of culture mixed in.
And, as with almost everything in Biology, it only makes sense in light of evolution.
In fact, you would be very hard pressed to explain our dedication to family members, desire for self preservation, notions of sex, and a host of other aspects of morality without evolution.

Self preservation was somewhere, somehow checked off in some box as a desirable effect.

"Do this again so that self preservation is enhanced."

"Self preservation is a prime directive here. Make sure it is guarded and facilitated."

How did a purposeless, goalless process determine that ?

Why didn't Evolution just select that only ROCKS and DIRT should fill the world ?

Originally posted by sonship
You still want mind readers.

No, I want honesty. If you don't recall what that thread was about, don't make claims about it.

You cannot prove by quotation that you changed your stubborn position that facts can be about things which are not true?
I never held such a position in the first place, so I would not need to prove that I changed it. It is for you to prove that I held such a position since it is you that made up that falsehood.
And you did so, purely in an attempt to draw the focus away from your repeated dishonesty in this thread.

Originally posted by sonship
Societies arrive at different methods to enact some of these intuitively sensed values.

You didn't watch it, did you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I want honesty. If you don't recall what that thread was about, don't make claims about it.

[b]You cannot prove by quotation that you changed your stubborn position that facts can be about things which are not true?
I never held such a position in the first place, so I would not need to prove that I changed it. It is for you to prove that I he ...[text shortened]... id so, purely in an attempt to draw the focus away from your repeated dishonesty in this thread.[/b]

No this obfuscating trick will not work.
You won't dump the burden on me to clean up your mess.

How much time will elapse before you say you do not believe that something can be evil yet not be objectively wrong ?

Next you'll probably deny that you said that.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You didn't watch it, did you?

No. I have not watch any video yet.
Did you ask me to do so ?

This was not addressed to me.

An anthropologist argues that some of our values are related to society structure, specifically energy capture:
YouTube

And aren't you the same twhitehead who was recently complaining about my use of quotations and arguments from authority ?

This is different, huh ?
Quotations and arguments from authority are OK if you do it.
Got it.

Originally posted by sonship
No this obfuscating trick will not work.
You won't dump the burden on me to clean up your mess.

You made a false claim about me. It is a mess of your own making. Clean it up or not. If you do not, I will take it that you lied. If you clean it up, then I will accept that you may have misremembered or misunderstood at the time and an apology for the mistake will be sufficient.

[edit]
I'll help you out just a little bit. Consider it an olive branch.
In that thread, we were discussing whether or not the word 'fact' refers to statements about what is, or what actually is. My claim was that 'what is' does not have a truth value, and thus if a fact is 'what is', then it does not have a truth value. You claimed that 'what is' does have a truth value but failed to find anyone who agreed with you or a reference to back up that usage.
What I never ever claimed was that statements about what is were not true.

Originally posted by sonship
No. I have not watch any video yet.
Did you ask me to do so ?

No, but its kind of silly to respond to a video you didn't watch with an argument that doesn't address the contents of the video.

I wasn't making an argument with the video, I just thought people reading this thread might find it interesting. I don't even know to what extent I agree with the speaker. I think you would do well to watch it as it is food for thought on the topic of this thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, but its kind of silly to respond to a video you didn't watch with an argument that doesn't address the contents of the video.

I wasn't making an argument with the video, I just thought people reading this thread might find it interesting. I don't even know to what extent I agree with the speaker. I think you would do well to watch it as it is food for thought on the topic of this thread.

I am watching it now.

It is interesting that toward the end 20:14 of length 20:18, Anderson says we are on the verge of the biggest change in human values that we have ever seen in human history.

I think I agree with this because of what Bible prophecy tells me.
it was interesting.

I went on from that video to listen to another rather interesting -

The Origins of the Final Solution

YouTube