1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Sep '16 13:57
    Originally posted by sonship
    In this group cooperation is it ever possible for the majority of a group to be wrong?
    I'll guess at what you mean and try and explain as best I can.
    What we call morality is a complex concept largely consisting of behaviours that encourage cooperation. To a large extent is it post justification for our natural instinct.
    Our natural instinct has a number of key features that we see played out in what we call morality.
    1. The concept of helping / and not harming others but only if it doesn't come at significant personal cost.
    2. The concepts surrounding what to do when people do not help / avoid harming others. So all the notions of 'justice' etc. ie how do we react to non-cooperative behaviour and try to encourage cooperation in others.
    3. The concepts surrounding relation and group behaviour. We not only accept that people are more likely to help their close relations or group but to some extent include group dynamics in morality, so that things like national pride or dying for your country becomes the moral thing to do.
    The above is just a rough summary, it would take a whole book to really go into it all.

    You are asking whether in group cooperation the majority can be wrong. In a simplified form of morality where 'cooperation=right' and 'not cooperating=wrong' then if the majority are cooperating for the good of the group then they are right and if they are not cooperating for the good of the group then they are wrong. The latter does occur.

    What I suspect you are getting at is the age old question of whether or not morality is decided by the majority. I am saying that no, morality isn't decided at all, morality is about cooperation.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Sep '16 13:59
    It must also be noted that what humans have perceived to be moral behaviour has changed as group sizes have changed.
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    06 Sep '16 14:44
    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.
    Hillary and the US federal government is evolving morality even further. 😵
  4. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    116436
    06 Sep '16 14:471 edit
    Originally posted by sonship
    If Evolution is the source of moral truth then its ever changing nature results in ever changing morals ?

    Then rape may be good someday when it enhances a species survivability.
    Cowardly action may be good one day for the same reason.
    Disloyalty to a friend may one day evolve to reinforce species survivability.

    In Malachi God says He hates divorce ...[text shortened]... ble gene pool ? Wasn't that tried by the funny little man in Germany with the square mustache ?
    Would you say that God's law as written in the bible is the basis for a robust, unchanging, authoritative moral framework?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Sep '16 14:53
    Originally posted by sonship
    If Evolution is the source of moral truth then its ever changing nature results in ever changing morals ?

    Then rape may be good someday when it enhances a species survivability.
    In human society, rape does result in enhanced survivability in certain situations, and this is one reason why rape does take place especially during times of war.
    Interestingly, even the Bible encourages it in such situations.
    That doesn't make it morally good. Morality is not equivalent to survival. Morality is more related to empathy and cooperation - which do not always enhance survival.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Sep '16 14:55
    Originally posted by whodey
    Hillary and the US federal government is evolving morality even further. 😵
    Whereas Trump and the republicans wouldn't know morality if it stood right in front of them.
    Take your politics back to debates where it belongs.
  7. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    06 Sep '16 15:02
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    To get to the place of either satisfactory or unsatisfactory some chemical reaction is going
    to acquire some form of understanding to make a judgment call. Getting to that place
    seems quite a reach if the only thing driving change is well, nothing. So something
    evolves to a place it can have a thought and hold it to the point of pondering meaning,
    What ...[text shortened]... ile we were floating around as asexual creatures, when we started walking
    on two legs, or when?
    I would suggest a search on the.evolution of morality if I thought your questions were any more than rhetorical devices.
  8. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    06 Sep '16 15:09
    Originally posted by JS357
    I would suggest a search on the.evolution of morality if I thought your questions were any more than rhetorical devices.
    Please, show me how a chemical reaction can produce reason? What is the point of going
    down this useless discussion if there isn't anything that get us off of the starting block?

    Simply talking about what we want and putting rules in place doesn't address anything
    useful, it isn't like that discussion will give us an answer there either.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    06 Sep '16 15:47
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Please, show me how a chemical reaction can produce reason?
    You will almost certainly have to do some studying to understand it. It isn't a one sentence answer. Hence is suggestion that you do some research (which you apparently didn't do).
  10. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    06 Sep '16 15:59
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Please, show me how a chemical reaction can produce reason? What is the point of going
    down this useless discussion if there isn't anything that get us off of the starting block?

    Simply talking about what we want and putting rules in place doesn't address anything
    useful, it isn't like that discussion will give us an answer there either.
    Well, a battery-operated microprocessor can apply a chemical reaction to logical analysis in ways not known a century ago.

    You might consider whether your reaction to the above is getting off the starting block.
  11. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Quarantined World
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    87415
    06 Sep '16 16:21
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Please, show me how a chemical reaction can produce reason? What is the point of going
    down this useless discussion if there isn't anything that get us off of the starting block?

    Simply talking about what we want and putting rules in place doesn't address anything
    useful, it isn't like that discussion will give us an answer there either.
    Are you asking if mind can exist without God?
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    06 Sep '16 16:36
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Whereas Trump and the republicans wouldn't know morality if it stood right in front of them.
    Take your politics back to debates where it belongs.
    You are right. Morality and spiritual matters have no place in politics.
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    06 Sep '16 16:361 edit
    Here is peak at the morality of the pre-Christian era.

    http://listverse.com/2016/09/06/10-insane-ways-spartan-boys-were-made-into-warriors/

    It starts with about half of all Spartan babies being left to die. The weak were discarded.

    Gee, I wonder if they had dumpsters like they do today to throw them in.
  14. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    06 Sep '16 16:41
    Originally posted by JS357
    Well, a battery-operated microprocessor can apply a chemical reaction to logical analysis in ways not known a century ago.

    You might consider whether your reaction to the above is getting off the starting block.
    Yes that is like saying an abacus had a thought because logic was applied with it.
  15. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    06 Sep '16 16:48
    Originally posted by DeepThought
    Are you asking if mind can exist without God?
    Neither of us could prove either side of that discussion, though I think showing how it
    came together then started functioning would be a tall tale that a lot of faith would have to
    be used. To be accepted as a plausible we would need to accept more than a small
    number of "should haves", "could haves", "might of", "its possible that" on top accepting
    everything else required just happen to be at the right place at the right time and on and
    on.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree