The evolution of morality

Originally posted by @stellspalfie
They have no obligation to adhere to my moral standard and most people don't. Look at the world around you, people (to one degree or another) already have a different set of moral standards to each other. As a collective we try to agree on a set of standards that ensures society works cohesively (to one degree or another).

Absolutely.

Originally posted by @stellspalfie
They have no obligation to adhere to my moral standard and most people don't. Look at the world around you, people (to one degree or another) already have a different set of moral standards to each other. As a collective we try to agree on a set of standards that ensures society works cohesively (to one degree or another).

If you say that people should not adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong, then how is your standard of any value to anyone?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you say that people should not adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong, then how is your standard of any value to anyone?

I didn't say that they shouldn't, I would prefer it if they did.

If I lived alone on an island, would my moral standard be valuable to anybody? The value of a moral is irrelevant to the existence of morality. However, as I don't live alone on an island I would say my good lady wife, my children, my friends and work colleagues all appreciate that I'm not going to murder them for fun.

Originally posted by @sonship
Okay, you nicely dodged the main part and commented on something.
Try now an answer to the main question.

What is the basis upon which we all find it a good thing that the human race has value and should continue ?

If we were beetles, don't you think we'd value beetle stuff?

That was a nice way of saying your question is stupid. Unless, I suppose, you are a member of the Human Extinction League?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Nudge for sonship.

The question I asked -

We may all agree. The moral argument for the existence of God examines - "But why do we all agree?" What is the basis upon which we all find it a good thing that the human race has value and should continue ?

The answer actually is quite simple, though you probably wont like it.

Early man realised that his chances of survival were enhanced if he worked with other people. (Cooperation). It was this initial cooperation that benefited individuals and the group at large that was the foundation for common morality. (I won't kill you if you don't kill me. L ...[text shortened]... and protect each others property etc). This in turn grew into mutual respect and value of life.

It is not that I need to like or dislike the answer Ghost.

Now it seems that what you have explained here already presupposes that early man thought survival and continuation was better than extinction. So "Let's cooperate".

It sounds to me that your describing that man said "This is the way for us to achieve survival. Cooperation". But it seems that it is ALREADY an intuitive given that "We have value. We have worth, We should not just die off."

Aren't you describing the agreed upon method upon which mankind sought to carry out what they already intuitively knew should be protected ?

What I think was going on in early human history, if you will, was that the sense of self worth, value, preciousness of their lives was innately in them.

On might argue that "Of course ALL living things want to survive by instinct." I believe that the innate intuitive conviction that human life should continue is place into man by design by a Living One whose continuation is eternal and uncreated.

The bible says that God has planted eternity into man's heart. I believe that the Eternal One has made us in His image and has planted a sense of the rightness of endlessness in the human heart.

" He [God] has made everything beautiful in its own time; also He has put eternity in their heart, ... " (Ecclesiastes 3:11a)

Man came by creation with the sense that he belongs to endlessness and perpetual continuation. He did not arrive at an agreement in community about this. He arrives in existence with it already implanted within him.

We may all agree. The moral argument for the existence of God examines - "But why do we all agree?" What is the basis upon which we all find it a good thing that the human race has value and should continue ?

Worth, preciousness, value, desire for continuation was in man by the Creator. God is the ultimate ground of worth, preciousness, value, and uncreated and eternal being.

Originally posted by @apathist
If we were beetles, don't you think we'd value beetle stuff?

That was a nice way of saying your question is stupid. Unless, I suppose, you are a member of the Human Extinction League?

If we were beetles, don't you think we'd value beetle stuff?

That was a nice way of saying your question is stupid. Unless, I suppose, you are a member of the Human Extinction League?

It is a fair point that probably all living organisms want to survive and live more.
So then you say that that makes it stupid to ask why we humans feel we should not go extinct.

Would I be a member of your Human Extinction League and hold that the resurrection of Christ is the central most important tenet of my worldview ? His resurrection, He clearly taught, was not just for Himself alone, but for man - man who dies.

"Jesus said to her, I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into Me, even if he should die, shall live." (John 11:25)

" Death the last enemy is being abolished." (1 Cor. 15:26)

God hates death more that He hates sin.
Death, the last enemy has to be vanquished via Jesus Christ's salvation.

Does this sound like one dedicated to a Human Extinction League?
You were remarking about stupidity ?

apathist,

Beetles may value beetle stuff. But what I think is going on is that man was created both WITH a connection to all lower forms of life and WITH a unique connection to the Uncreated and Eternal life which is God.

There are two accounts of the creation of man in Genesis. They contain differences which are difficult to harmanize. One matter is completely consistent in both accounts. Man is the HEAD of all other lives on earth. Man occupies the peak of the pinnacle of all other living created lives. And you do not need the Bible to reveal that there is nothing else on the planet quite like human beings.

While we are unique and made in the image of God according to Genesis 1:26,27 we are not SO isolated from all other living things as to be totally independent. There is a connection downward and a connection upward. We cannot be too proud for we are connected to all living things below us. Yet we also cannot have too much false humility.

We are higher than the beetles.

Man in Genesis chapter one is given dominion over all the other living things.
Man in Genesis two is given to name and define all other living things.

In some ways, yes, we are like beetles. But without controversy we occupy a more preeminent status in the universe than beetles. No brag. Just fact.

But something has also gone terribly wrong with man. I wants heard long ago that during the fall of the Roman Empire a town was so frustrated and perplexed at their problems that they wanted to elect a cow to be the mayor of the town. Frustration, despair, sets in sometimes since the fall of man into sin and death. And men lose their sense of being over the animals in wisdom and virtue.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Seems you have adopted FMFs tactic. Good for you.

Looks like he has.
Logic is a real bummer isn't it?

Originally posted by @sonship
The question I asked -

We may all agree. The moral argument for the existence of God examines - "But why do we all agree?" What is the basis upon which we all find it a good thing that the human race has value and should continue ?

[quote]
The answer actually is quite simple, though you probably wont like it.

Early man realised ...[text shortened]... ator. God is the ultimate ground of worth, preciousness, value, and uncreated and eternal being.

You're over thinking it sir. Self-survival is not unique to human beings. It's just, with increasing intelligence, man realised this is often best accomplished by mutual cooperation. Self preservation is the building block for morality, and the driving force was intelligence, not intuition.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Looks like he has.
Logic is a real bummer isn't it?

The logic of question avoidance? Hmmm.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The logic of question avoidance? Hmmm.

No.

And you are the Master of Question Avoidance.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
No.

And you are the Master of Question Avoidance.

Which question have I avoided?

Originally posted by @stellspalfie
I didn't say that they shouldn't, I would prefer it if they did.

If I lived alone on an island, would my moral standard be valuable to anybody? The value of a moral is irrelevant to the existence of morality. However, as I don't live alone on an island I would say my good lady wife, my children, my friends and work colleagues all appreciate that I'm not going to murder them for fun.

If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over and over again?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Which question have I avoided?

How about

Why is it better to believe in nothing than fairies at the bottom of your garden?