- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenWould you say that the main reason why morality was invented was to preserve society?
That is pretty much exactly the way I see it. We act according to morals
for the long-term benefits, not just for our own self but those around us,
simply because we've discovered that we need it. Otherwise we would
stand alone against nature. If you've ever been without food or shelter in
a large (I'm talking can't walk through in days) forest with ...[text shortened]... nprotected and unsheltered (or as it stands for "higher"
civilisations - in jail).
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerIn a way, you could say that. Moral guidelines are defined to make it
Would you say that the main reason why morality was invented was to preserve society?
possible for us to live together despite all our differences. You can't just
take another persons life because (s)he's an inconvenience. Doing that
will leave you with one less person to help out when the going gets
tough. People who figure these things out will be more successful in
holding their society together.
At the same time, if moral codes are too rigid, they can inadvertently be
the very reason a society falls apart. If, for instance, you take the stance
that it's wrong to kill under any circumstances, and you find yourself (and
the society you belong to) in conflict with another group that believes
only the strongest deserve whatever resources you both need, your
society will fall apart, be annihilated or conquered (simply because you
can't defend yourselves). Your ideas may in part be permeated by the
conquering society but when tough times come again, you'll see how
most people are willing to do just about anything just to survive (forming
subgroups to gain strength and then use one set of moral guidelines
within the group to keep it together, and another set against others for
survival). We all dislike double-standards, but most people act on them
every single day. These days it may be mostly out of comfort, but back
then it was really about survival.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo I don't believe that morality was 'invented'. Didn't your read your own post? It evolved.
But you agree that morality was invented to preserve society?
Morality evolved to preserve the ability for a species to live in community (society).
The moral behavior we observe amongst animals of other species reflect the types of community that they live in.
Keep in mind that in some cases 'community' can be simply two individuals for a very short space of time (long enough to mate). In general behavior which affects reproductive success does not last.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenThe only problem that I have with this theory of yours is this:
In a way, you could say that. Moral guidelines are defined to make it
possible for us to live together despite all our differences. You can't just
take another persons life because (s)he's an inconvenience. Doing that
will leave you with one less person to help out when the going gets
tough. People who figure these things out will be more successful ...[text shortened]... . These days it may be mostly out of comfort, but back
then it was really about survival.
Whenever people try to determine right for themselves, they always start by assuming that something is already intrinsically right. When you claim that morality is simply mankind's invention to preserve society, they assume that society ought to be preserved. It is the assumed, unproven truth on which their morality rests. They may deny that absolutes for morality exist, but the moment they make any moral claim - such as the proposition that society ought to be preserved - they have planted their feet on a moral absolute. They can't help but do so because for any foundational assumption to be held valid, it must be based on an absolute.
You may lock the door against moral absolutes of any kind, but the moment you claim any action to be right or wrong, some kind of absolute has sneaked in through the window.
21 Feb 07
You also do not say whether it is a specific religion that is required to 'hold society together' or just any religion. In a Muslim society is it the same God providing the laws? What about Buddhists who don't believe in God? Are you claiming that belief in God is necessary for society and that no society has ever succeeded without one? I think you will be hard pressed to find any evidence for such a preposterous claim.
The above is an extract of twhitehead's post. I've been meaning to raise the same issue. Would be nice if dj2 can respond to it. Of course, you'll try your best to convince us that the 'true' moral standard would be that of the christian god, that is easy to figure out, knowing you. But I am still curious to know how you're going to 'logically reason' it out to arrive at such a conclusion.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadMorality evolved...
No I don't believe that morality was 'invented'. Didn't your read your own post? It evolved.
Morality evolved to preserve the ability for a species to live in community (society).
The moral behavior we observe amongst animals of other species reflect the types of community that they live in.
Keep in mind that in some cases 'community' can be simply t ...[text shortened]... ong enough to mate). In general behavior which affects reproductive success does not last.
Oh please.. not that again... you mean from a chemical soup? Same as your own brain? You mean to say that that brain of yours is nothing more than a chance cluster of molecules thrown together by random movements of irrational forces??
How can you trust such a mind to reach rational conclusions about reality?
21 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerBut don't you see how incredibly arbitrary morality is? We choose the moral
The only problem that I have with this theory of yours is this:
Whenever people try to determine right for themselves, they always start by assuming that something is already intrinsically right. When you claim that morality is simply mankind's invention to preserve society, they assume that society ought to be preserved. It is the assumed, unproven tr laim any action to be right or wrong, some kind of absolute has sneaked in through the window.
codes to follow as we need them. Some of us are smart and chose to follow
a code that will preserve the unity of the group and hence make us stronger
against possible threats, others chose only what would preserve their own
self in the short run. In either case, it's a choice and not something that is
imprinted in us from birth (or we wouldn't be able to break those moral
codes as we so often do).
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe interesting thing is your own beliefs about God fall by the same logic. You believe that God is 'right' but cannot explain what the absolute principle is that you are basing this on.
Whenever people try to determine right for themselves, they always start by assuming that something is already intrinsically right. When you claim that morality is simply mankind's invention to preserve society, they assume that society ought to be preserved. It is the assumed, unproven truth on which their morality rests. They may deny that absolutes for ...[text shortened]... so because for any foundational assumption to be held valid, it must be based on an absolute.
You may lock the door against moral absolutes of any kind, but the moment you claim any action to be right or wrong, some kind of absolute has sneaked in through the window.
But not if you only claim it to be right or wrong based on your own personal relative moral code or based on societies relative moral code. At no point have I claimed that anything is absolutely 'right'.
Yes society assumes that society be preserved but that is simply an evolved tendency not an absolute. Organisms which do not assume it die off rather quick.
Your logic assumes without proof that the foundational claim of society is valid. There is no evidence to support such a claim and thus your conclusion is invalid.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by stockenI disagree with your understanding of the term 'moral code'. In fact you indicate it in your post with the phrase 'break those moral codes'.
But don't you see how incredibly arbitrary morality is? We choose the moral
codes to follow as we need them. Some of us are smart and chose to follow
a code that will preserve the unity of the group and hence make us stronger
against possible threats, others chose only what would preserve their own
self in the short run. In either case, it's a choice ...[text shortened]... ted in us from birth (or we wouldn't be able to break those moral
codes as we so often do).
A moral code is what you believe to be 'right' or 'wrong' according to your conscience but it does not dictate what we actually do. We often do things that we feel guilty about that go against our conscience.
In evolution there are two tendencies that 'war' against each other. The tendency to be selfish and the tendency to do what is best for the society.
Morality is the 'best for society' part.
21 Feb 07
Morality evolved to preserve the ability for a species to live in community (society).
The moral behavior we observe amongst animals of other species reflect the types of community that they live in.
There seems to be something else evolving along side of this ability to live in community. At least with human beings there has evolved an ability to not only wipe out the entire community of man but of all life on earth as well.
No animal could invent a hydrogen bomb. So if this ability to preserve community evolved what's with this other development in parallel - that is the encreased ability for humans to destroy all living things on the planet at the push of a button?
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou said it yourself in a statement you asked us to agree with. Now you don't want to hear it? Make up your mind.
[b]Morality evolved...
Oh please.. not that again... you mean from a chemical soup? Same as your own brain? [/b]
You mean to say that that brain of yours is nothing more than a chance cluster of molecules thrown together by random movements of irrational forces??
No I don't. I believe it evolved. If you don't understand evolution, then read a book or the evolution thread. If you still don't understand it then I wouldn't mind explaining the basic concepts if you first express an eagerness to listen. The concepts themselves are not a matter of belief so a theist should be able to understand them whether or not they accept that evolution is a valid explanation for life's development.
How can you trust such a mind to reach rational conclusions about reality?
How a mind is made does not directly affect its ability to make rational deductions. What matters is its current configuration. And based on this thread so far I would trust it more than I would trust yours when it comes to rational conclusions.
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by jaywillI doubt that humans are yet capable of destroying all living things on the planet. However the capability for mass destruction just happens to be a result of a high level of intelligence. Whether or not that results in reduced survivability remains to be seen.
There seems to be something else evolving along side of this ability to live in community. At least with human beings there has evolved an ability to not only wipe out the entire community of man but of all life on earth as well.
No animal could invent a hydrogen bomb. So if this ability to preserve community evolved what's with this other developme ...[text shortened]... ncreased ability for humans to destroy all living things on the planet at the push of a button?
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadTouched a nerve here:
I disagree with your understanding of the term 'moral code'. In fact you indicate it in your post with the phrase 'break those moral codes'.
A moral code is what you believe to be 'right' or 'wrong' according to your conscience but it does not dictate what we actually do. We often do things that we feel guilty about that go against our conscience.
In ev ...[text shortened]... ndency to do what is best for the society.
Morality is the 'best for society' part.
"In evolution there are two tendencies that 'war' against each other. The tendency to be selfish and the tendency to do what is best for the society.
Morality is the 'best for society' part."
...........
That's really well said IMO, and nails down the human dilemma pretty good. Covers right/wrong, good/evil and the devil in the details.
The details being the choices we make by the dozens on a daily basis.
Desire + ego - conscience = trouble
21 Feb 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy understanding of 'moral code' may be different from yours then. I think
I disagree with your understanding of the term 'moral code'. In fact you indicate it in your post with the phrase 'break those moral codes'.
A moral code is what you believe to be 'right' or 'wrong' according to your conscience but it does not dictate what we actually do. We often do things that we feel guilty about that go against our conscience.
In ev ...[text shortened]... ndency to do what is best for the society.
Morality is the 'best for society' part.
of it as a recommendation that should be followed, and is of such
importance that we can consider it law. But we often break those "laws",
sometimes for very good reasons. What I'm saying is that if these moral
codes are imprinted in us, as part of us, we would all think the same way
about right and wrong, but we don't. We often disagree on matters of right
and wrong, and we can change our mind depending on circumstances.
Hence, I think dj is off on a cloud tripping (just an expression) when he talks
about an absolute moral sense that clearly applies what is right and wrong to
any given situation.