Does The Theory of Evolution Lead to Immorality?

[tomspug]

Actually, the logic of evolution should lead to the rejection of morality altogether, thus rendering the term 'immorality' unnecessary. If you believe in evolution, you shouldn't believe in right and wrong at all!

For example, if we evolved from lower life-forms, than morality is simply a social tool, a part of evolution. Therefore, guilt is simply the product of social stimuli and should not be taken seriously. All implications of guilt, morality, and justice should be ignored on a personal level. It's only purpose should be to maintain ORDER and nothing more.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, the logic of evolution should lead to the rejection of morality altogether, thus rendering the term 'immorality' unnecessary. If you believe in evolution, you shouldn't believe in right and wrong at all!

For example, if we evolved from lower life-forms, than morality is simply a social tool, a part of evolution. Therefore, guilt is simply the product of social stimuli and should not be taken seriously. All implications of guilt, morality, and justice should be ignored on a personal level. It's only purpose should be to maintain ORDER and nothing more.

Why can't we believe in social tools?

 

[tomspug]

You can, but you have to accept that that is all they are. You shouldn't feel bad for doing something 'immoral', just don't do it so you won't get caught!

In other words, that feeling you get when you run over a cat? It's nothing. Just keep driving.

 

[Willamena]

You can, but you have to accept that that is all they are. You shouldn't feel bad for doing something 'immoral', just don't do it so you won't get caught!

In other words, that feeling you get when you run over a cat? It's nothing. Just keep driving.

What more would they be, though? I don't follow your logic that suggests that because they are social tools, and because we recognize them as social tools, they don't operate exactly the same as ...whatever else they may be.

 

[doppelganger]

Does the theory of evolution lead to immorality or other ills? Why or why not?

No. The Theory of Evolution leads to immortality by putting the believer's soul back in harmony with the universal, holistic system of which he/she is only a manifestation carved out in language.

 

[rojse]

I can't think of another good reason for human beings worldwide to have such similar behavioural responses.

How about logical analysis?

 

[Halcyon]

How about logical analysis?

You think the cultural passing down of behaviour from parent to child for hundreds of thousands of years since all of mankind lived in Africa, practically unchanged in its essential forms is more logical than a genetic basis for species-wide behaviour?

 

[kai]

At first I thought it said "immortality" and that led to some fanciful speculation on my part... But if it refers to extrapolating social behaviors from a theory of biology, then I would have to say no. I'm not a one to think that our behaviors are written in our genetic code.

i thought it said immortality , and also say no

 

[kai]

Still, they have mommies and daddies, who had mommies and daddies...

thats the key to our moral code ,we didnt have to wait until moses for the ten commandments we had already worked it out by then, having our families and extended families to look after , i think hammarubi first wrote it down 3to 4 thousand years ago.
family
extended family
tribe
we learnt our moral code from our elders as they did before them

 

[logician]

How cuold a scientific theory influence morals? I think other underlying beliefs would affect your reactions to any scientific theory.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Actually, the logic of evolution should lead to the rejection of morality altogether, thus rendering the term 'immorality' unnecessary. If you believe in evolution, you shouldn't believe in right and wrong at all!

For example, if we evolved from lower life-forms, than morality is simply a social tool, a part of evolution. Therefore, guilt is simply the product of social stimuli and should not be taken seriously. All implications of guilt, morality, and justice should be ignored on a personal level. It's only purpose should be to maintain ORDER and nothing more.

Everything is a product of some sort of stimuli, from wanting to eat to what we call love, recognising it as such doesn't negate what it is. All ToE tells us is how we got here, not how we should behave.
Unless you really believe that some mystical cloud dweller in a caftan gave a list of rules to some other caftan wearing bloke on the top of a hill, then you recognise morality as a social construct. The fact it differs between cultures - and often between people of the same culture - on even small points, clearly illustrates that there is no absolute morality except in some people's heads.
Now, my neighbour doesn't have an ox so is it allowable to go find a random stranger with an ox and kill them? Also, do I have to actually kill them, or can I just break their knees and take their ox while they're incapacitated?

 

[Godfather89]

I see the body as an effect not a cause. For example, When you feel sad you cry. First you need a reason to be feel the way you do and that needs to be separate from you (A stimulus). Than you need to connect the reason with your need to be sad. From there your brain (part of your body) begins to make chemicals that make your eyes want to cry and make your body feel down and depressed.

Basically what I am trying to say is that You need something separate from you to cause you to be effected differently. Your not just going to do it, you need a reason. You need a reason SEPARATE from you to see the light at the end of the tunnel, since chemicals and nerves shooting off at the point of death are inside of you and not separate from you, than that light is separate from you and you are seeing this light despite the fact the eyes are dead.

To me this means than that your being is separate from your body.

 

[rojse]

I see the body as an effect not a cause. For example, When you feel sad you cry. First you need a reason to be feel the way you do and that needs to be separate from you (A stimulus). Than you need to connect the reason with your need to be sad. From there your brain (part of your body) begins to make chemicals that make your eyes want to cry and make your body feel down and depressed.

Basically what I am trying to say is that You need something separate from you to cause you to be effected differently. Your not just going to do it, you need a reason. You need a reason SEPARATE from you to see the light at the end of the tunnel, since chemicals and nerves shooting off at the point of death are inside of you and not separate from you, than that light is separate from you and you are seeing this light despite the fact the eyes are dead.

To me this means than that your being is separate from your body.

In spite of myself, I feel the need to ask how this addresses the thread question, or even the subject of evolution, for that matter.

 

[Francine]

How cuold a scientific theory influence morals?

No one spoke of moral relativism until Einstein eliminated the reign of absolute space and time. They have nothing to do with one another, but ideas cross the osmotic barrier.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, the logic of evolution should lead to the rejection of morality altogether, thus rendering the term 'immorality' unnecessary. If you believe in evolution, you shouldn't believe in right and wrong at all!

For example, if we evolved from lower life-forms, than morality is simply a social tool, a part of evolution. Therefore, guilt is simply the product of social stimuli and should not be taken seriously. All implications of guilt, morality, and justice should be ignored on a personal level. It's only purpose should be to maintain ORDER and nothing more.

Superficial.

 

[logician]

Yes, accepting the theory of evolution is the doorway to hell. It seems innocent enough, you know, a temptingly logical explanation for things like the fossil record, the genetic code, host-parasite relationships, but in reality it is a cleverly disguised plan to kill God, and once God is dead you know that there will be no reason whatsoever to not kill the person sitting next to you.

Recap:

ToE--->door to hell--->God is dead--->murder your neighbor and take his ox.

Why does belief in some god stop you from killing your neighbor?

 

[Sunstone]

Why does belief in some god stop you from killing your neighbor?

I think if you re-read Luna's post, you might detect a note of humor in it.

 

[gnostic]

No. Morality and evolution are not related, and evolution is independent of what is good or bad in behavior.

 

[logician]

I think if you re-read Luna's post, you might detect a note of humor in it.

I think her post makes the assumption that god belief means you won't kill your neighbor, even though done in humor.

 

[rojse]

Evolution cites immorality just as much as gravitational theory incites immorality.