Evolution not God

[Nakosis]

What does the bold mean? What is the effect of those 2 on morality and how do they relate to your usage of the species?

To my understanding, it means that an individual may sacrifice their own survivability for the group/tribe out of a feeling of kinship. So the "GEC" genetics/experience/culture of the group/tribe gets passed on as long as the group continues to be successful enough.

Socially, the group approves of certain behaviors. This approval in an individual increases the attractiveness one sees in a potential mate. Again providing a greater change of these behaviors to continue to be propagated.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To my understanding, it means that an individual may sacrifice their own survivability for the group/tribe out of a feeling of kinship. So the "GEC" genetics/experience/culture of the group/tribe gets passed on as long as the group continues to be successful enough.

Socially, the group approves of certain behaviors. This approval in an individual increases the attractiveness one sees in a potential mate. Again providing a greater change of these behaviors to continue to be propagated.

Well, not in my understanding.
There are 2 kinds of kinship, biological and social:
"In biology, kinship typically refers to the degree of genetic relatedness or coefficient of relationships between individual members of a species. One of the founders of the anthropological relationship research was Lewis Henry Morgan, in his Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (1871)."
Both has limits since e.g. I have very low kinship to some people and higher to others, so I favour those with high kinship. And thus there is no single species, because I treat the different members differently.
Kinship is not so, that we all treat each others as all being of equal value.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes you think I haven't?

It is, IMO, subjective to a genetic/cultural/experiential process.
My only point here is that divine intervention is not a requirement for the development of morality in humans.

Yeah, if that is it, then we agree. But we don't agree on all that about the species as a standard for morality.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Doesn’t really matter whether morals come from god or evolution. It all boils down to a thought anyway.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, if that is it, then we agree. But we don't agree on all that about the species as a standard for morality.

Yes I probably should have used a word other than standard since it conveys something other than what I intended.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, not in my understanding.
There are 2 kinds of kinship, biological and social:
"In biology, kinship typically refers to the degree of genetic relatedness or coefficient of relationships between individual members of a species. One of the founders of the anthropological relationship research was Lewis Henry Morgan, in his Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (1871)."
Both has limits since e.g. I have very low kinship to some people and higher to others, so I favour those with high kinship. And thus there is no single species, because I treat the different members differently.
Kinship is not so, that we all treat each others as all being of equal value.

How many species of humans currently exist?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How many species of humans currently exist?

Yeah, the point is that morality is not based on the species but the interaction of individuals.

 

[Nakosis]

Yeah, the point is that morality is not based on the species but the interaction of individuals.

Which, imo, is slightly more complex in humans vs other species.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which, imo, is slightly more complex in humans vs other species.

The species as only the group of members is not the basis of morality in any higher organisms. It is the replication of the fittest gene or genome.

 

[Nakosis]

The species as only the group of members is not the basis of morality in any higher organisms. It is the replication of the fittest gene or genome.

Ok, I don't think most moral codes are based on that.
For example "Do onto other as you would have them do unto you". How does this relate to the replication of the fittest gene/genome?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, I don't think most moral codes are based on that.
For example "Do onto other as you would have them do unto you". How does this relate to the replication of the fittest gene/genome?

It doesn't. But it is not objective because how I do and want you to do, may not in all cases be the same as you do and want me to do.
That one is social reciprocality and the social kinship among individuals. Still no species as such.

 

[metis]

What provides the moral for humanity's standard is evolution.

A great many studies have shown that most species have evolved a "pecking order", as one may call an "instinct" and other a "reflex", so there is evidence that at least some morality gets passed on genetically. However, the research also shows that not all individuals within a species conform, thus even with bacteria there's "delinquents".

 

[Nakosis]

It doesn't. But it is not objective because how I do and want you to do, may not in all cases be the same as you do and want me to do.
That one is social reciprocality and the social kinship among individuals. Still no species as such.

Yes, well I'm not trying to defend my view as much as understand yours. Which I'd be happy to consider but still don't understand the relationship.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Good, right and evil seems to be subjective opinions. If the highest standard is "survival for the species", it opens door for example to kill people that are not seen useful. That is why I don't like it.

Survival of the fittest isn't a moral imperative. It's a description of a biological process and an unfortunate name for the fact that the most prolific individuals will have the greatest effect on a population's future genetic complement (gene pool). It should probably be called proliferation of the most fecund.

Digression: I've been collecting unfortunate names lately:

• church-state separation - God forbid the church isn't subordinate to the state; what we really mean is church-us separation, and we rely on the state to maintain that
• defunding the police - doesn't mean that
• proof beyond a reasonable doubt - should be belief beyond reasonable doubt; too many people misuse the word proof

People evolved to worship and fear deities they have placed in charge of overseeing their morals and ethics. Therefore, God is most certainly involved in the "moral for humanity's standard."

God or the concept of God?

And I would say that nobody but me chose my moral standards, not gods and not other people. Others claim that moral values come from human history through our forbears, culturally transmitted, and this may be true in many or most cases, but I contend that I would hold the same values I currently hold even if nobody else at all felt the same. They come from reason applied to my moral intuitions, which is utilitarian ethics for designing societies and the Golden Rule for navigating life myself.

Doesn’t really matter whether morals come from god or evolution.

It does with me. It's why I reject one (received morals) but not the other (endogenous moral intuitions). That wouldn't make sense if religious values were actually from a deity.

it's not you, it's me.

This might give you a chuckle:

 

[SalixIncendium]

God or the concept of God?

Depends on one's perspective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, well I'm not trying to defend my view as much as understand yours. Which I'd be happy to consider but still don't understand the relationship.

My view is that the understanding of a species is not that a species is not a thing in itself or a category in itself. Rather a species is an abstract made up of the members of the species, but the members are not just the same as being members. There are variations within the members and that has a consequence for morality.
As for biology the replication of the fittest genome/gene means the survival and all the rest as it also relates to morality don't happen at the level of the species. It happens on the level of the individual organism and the interaction between the organisms.

In other words since you use science, the method of reduction in science means that a species is reduced to the members as members and not the species as something in itself.

 

[Audie]

Good, right and evil seems to be subjective opinions. If the highest standard is "survival for the species", it opens door for example to kill people that are not seen useful. That is why I don't like it.

Like it or not thats the
example that is set in the bible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Like it or not thats the
example that is set in the bible.

Yeah, and so what. The Bible is not all of religion and it is not the only version of God.

But it is not science to claim that biology is about the survival of the species. You do know that, don't you?

 

[Nakosis]

My view is that the understanding of a species is not that a species is not a thing in itself or a category in itself. Rather a species is an abstract made up of the members of the species, but the members are not just the same as being members. There are variations within the members and that has a consequence for morality.
As for biology the replication of the fittest genome/gene means the survival and all the rest as it also relates to morality don't happen at the level of the species. It happens on the level of the individual organism and the interaction between the organisms.

In other words since you use science, the method of reduction in science means that a species is reduced to the members as members and not the species as something in itself.

Ok, would you *say* the they way a cat develops moral standards is the same way a human develops moral standards?

 

[Valjean]

Good, right and evil seems to be subjective opinions. If the highest standard is "survival for the species", it opens door for example to kill people that are not seen useful. That is why I don't like it.

Don't like what?

Keep in mind that our 'moral' and psychological programming was optimized for small-band, hunting-gathering groups, but the tribalism that was utilitarian fifty thousand years ago causes all sorts of problems in the unnatural, crowded, multicultural society we now inhabit.
At one time, eliminating a potential threat to your band was common sense, and, in many cases, a stranger constituted a potential threat.
Until recently, there was no reason for moral consideration to extend beyond one's own little band.