• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

do morals evolve or...

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Without a moral objective standard, we cannot say that slavery was ever, is ever, or ever will be, morally wrong for everyone. We can only say that it violates my personal moral standard. Or to me it's morally wrong. Or I think that is morally wrong.

Since militant unbelievers claim that no moral objective standard or universal moral standard, exists, then all morals or morality can only be subjective. That morality can only be judged good or evil from person to person.

That is not quite correct. We militant unbelievers sometimes conclude that moral subjectivity is a circunstantial, albeit persistent, fact.

You may want to read a bit about Utilitarianism and particularly Peter Singer's ethical proposals sometime. He is a very solid, very serious, very insightful author on the matter - and quite frankly, he's way ahead of most organized religions when it comes to this field.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Doubtless they will. It is barbaric to not even blink at the levels of military expenditure that we currently have, or at what passes for political debate these days.

Particularly given the current situation of poverty and social inequality.
But who knows what sins our progeny will commit by our standards today? If we look into the future, we could see a world where our every act is
monitored by the authorities. They could believe that security is the ultimate goal, & prehaps not value liberty as we do. Over the coming millennia,
there will be many different moral standards, which might appear to go forward or backward....if there even is a forward or backward.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Because the enemy is not a member of your society.

I know it is hard to comprehend, because we live today in what we consider a global society. We have come, basically, to a moral understanding that killing is wrong except in the most extreme of circumstances.
I believe this is a 'better' morality than the xenophobic moral attitudes in my example.

Think about it. In 2000 years, will the humans look back at our 'moral' behavior and consider us barbaric?

200 yrs from now a future generation would probably see us less barbaric then we see our history form 200 yrs ago. human rights have made the scene after the enlightenment and will continue to grow and spread, now with the new age of information.
i do believe good will conquer evil because i believe we are all fundamentally good but of course capable of doing evil...
i wonder if that would be the standard of which i am thinking about.
that we are all good fundamentally...i'm just throwing ideas out there to see other peoples point of veiw...thanx for you input ;) btw...
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
But who knows what sins our progeny will commit by our standards today?

I don't, but I'm willing to bet that includes gay marriage and (unfortunately) widespread use of recreational drugs. Probably some sort of devaluing of "national sovereignity" as well.

If we look into the future, we could see a world where our every act is
monitored by the authorities. They could believe that security is the ultimate goal, & perhaps not value liberty as we do. Over the coming millennia,
there will be many different moral standards, which might appear to go forward or backward....if there even is a forward or backward.

I doubt it, personally. If there is an emerging trend, it is that we will eventually need to negotiate more widespread and more flexible moral standards.
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Doubtless they will. It is barbaric to not even blink at the levels of military expenditure that we currently have, or at what passes for political debate these days.

Particularly given the current situation of poverty and social inequality.
Exactly.
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
do morals evolve or...


If our morality comes from our earliest primate ancestors via Evolution, then eventually during this great study between Biologists, Anthropologists, and Philosophers, I think a Creator will have to be implied. Wait and see. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1
I don't quite follow your reasoning: Because animals display behaviors we consider moral, we therefore will have to infer a Creator to account for our morality. Huh?

The fact that animals do display behavior we consider moral simply goes to show how these behaviors could have evolved and become prevalant. The addition of greater cognitive faculties (the ability to think about morality) and the ability to transmit cultural norms from generation to generation (language) can account for the more complex form of morality displayed by humans.
 

Midnight Pete

Well-Known Member
When animals display behaviours we consider to be moral or immoral, are we not simply projecting our ideas onto them? For example, an open-mouthed smile is friendly and affectionate to us, but to primates it means the opposite. How many humans have misread the body-language of animals and paid for it with their life?
 

Falvlun

Earthbending Lemur
Premium Member
When animals display behaviours we consider to be moral or immoral, are we not simply projecting our ideas onto them? For example, an open-mouthed smile is friendly and affectionate to us, but to primates it means the opposite. How many humans have misread the body-language of animals and paid for it with their life?
When we say animals display "moral" behavior, we are talking about much more specific thing than a "smile". For example, dogs have been shown to have a concept of fairness, bats display recipricol altruism (they'll share the blood they got with bats who were unsuccesful, with the expectation that if they come back emptyhanded, they'll be helped out next time), and chimps will comfort the "losers" in fights, displaying rudimentary empathy.

Now, we have no idea whether the chimp thinks "Hey, I should give him a hug because that's a nice thing to do". All we know is that they do give the hug. It also shows that these behaviors are not unique to humans, and gives us reason to believe that these behaviors have evolutionary benefits, and thus were passed on.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
do morals evolve or...


If our morality comes from our earliest primate ancestors via Evolution, then eventually during this great study between Biologists, Anthropologists, and Philosophers, I think a Creator will have to be implied. Wait and see. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

But it must be noted that the biological concept of evolution is completely unrelated to any other use of that word. It is not at all a philosophical concept and it would be a stretch to relate it even to anthropology. In fact, it is often at odds with even the everyday meaning of the word, since it lacks even a clear direction.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Not really. Most of morals are logically inferred from basic self-preservation instincts.

you might find this interesting...

Experiments with rhesus monkeys would prove that the evolution of empathy is a very long one. These little monkeys were given the option of doubling their food source while simultaneously shocking their fellow monkeys, or eating half as much and letting their friends live an electricity-free existence. Using a system of chains, batteries, and automatic food dispensers, the experimenters found that two-thirds of the monkeys preferred the empathetic less-food option. In a few cases, these monkeys were even starving themselves to avoid hurting their little buddies. They were also less likely to shock another monkey if they had experienced a shock themselves, and were less likely to shock any monkey they knew, although they might not be so kind if one of the scientists were thrown into the cage.

Conservative Left Brain, Liberal Right Brain
 
Top